Non-Disclosure of Suitable Alternate Accommodations Owned by Joint Family Members Defeats a Landlord’s Bona Fide Requirement Claim

The Petitioner (landlady) filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958, against the Respondent (tenant), a doctor running a clinic since 1985

The Petitioner claimed a bona fide requirement for her grandson, Mr. Rishabh Jain, to start a diamond business

The Respondent contested the petition, alleging that the Petitioner suppressed information regarding Mr. Rishabh Jain’s status as a step-grandson and the availability of multiple vacant commercial properties owned by the Petitioner and her co-wife, Smt. Kanta Devi

Evidence revealed that the Petitioner’s husband had two wives living as a joint family, and several shops in nearby properties (No. 87 and 88) were vacant or recently reconstructed

The Trial Court (ARC) dismissed the petition on 25.09.2018, leading to this revision

1. Whether the definition of "family" under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act includes a step-grandson for the purpose of bona fide requirement

2. Whether the Petitioner proved a lack of "reasonably suitable residential/commercial accommodation" given the properties available to the joint family unit

Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, which allows eviction if premises are required bona fide by the landlord for themselves or any dependent family member, provided no other suitable accommodation exists

K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal, establishing "family" as a flexible term depending on context

Manju Devi v. Pratap Singh, which held that a step-parent is not absolved of the responsibility to settle a step-child in a vocation

The principle from Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, limiting the High Court’s revisional power to checking if the order is "according to law" without re-appreciating evidence unless findings are perverse

The Court observed that while "family" is broadly interpreted to include step-relations living under one roof, this jointness imposes a reciprocal burden regarding alternate accommodation.

The Court noted that the Petitioner failed to disclose ownership of Property No. 88 and the reconstruction of Property No. 87, which offered multiple vacant commercial spaces

The Court found the Petitioner’s testimony inconsistent with the site plan; specifically, she claimed the tenanted premises faced the main road to argue its unique suitability, whereas the site plan and evidence showed it opened into an alley (gali), similar to the Petitioner’s other vacant shops

The Court reasoned that since the grandson could satisfy his needs through ample vacant spaces held by his real grandmother (Smt. Kanta Devi) or the Petitioner within the same joint family unit, the "dependency" and "bona fide need" for the specific tenanted premises were not established

The findings of the learned ARC were found to be based on a correct appreciation of evidence regarding the availability of vacant shops in Properties No. 87 and 88, and the revision petition was dismissed