Unexplained re-letting of alternative vacant premises negates a landlord's claim of bona fide requirement.

The Petitioner/Landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) against the Respondents/Tenants in respect of Shop No. 438, Ground Floor, Masjid Moth, New Delhi

The Petitioner claimed the premises were bona fide required for his son, Jatinder Atri, to run a real estate business from the ground floor, as his current office on the first floor of Property No. 439 was allegedly not generating sufficient income

During proceedings, it was revealed that the Petitioner owned multiple properties in the same vicinity (Nos. 279, 279-A, 435, 436, 437, 439, and 440)

The Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dismissed the eviction petition on 31.10.2019, holding that the Petitioner failed to prove both bona fide requirement and the absence of suitable alternative accommodation

The Petitioner challenged this dismissal via a revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act

1. Whether the Petitioner/Landlord established a bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises for his son’s business under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

2. Whether the Petitioner had no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available for the stated purpose.

3. Whether the findings of the learned ARC were perverse or suffered from material impropriety warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction.

Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which governs eviction based on the bona fide requirement of the landlord

Rahabhar Productions (P) Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon, establishing that "bona fide need" must be genuine, honest, and conceived in good faith, possessing an objective element of "need" rather than a mere subjective "desire"

Principles from Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, which restrict the High Court from re-appreciating evidence unless the trial court’s order is arbitrary, perverse, or suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record

The Court observed that while a landlord is generally the best judge of their requirements, the "need" must be supported by objective evidence

In this case, the Petitioner's son had been operating his business from a first-floor office since 2011-2012 without any documented change in circumstances to justify an urgent move to the ground floor

The Petitioner feigned ignorance regarding his son’s specific income during cross-examination, undermining the claim that the current office was financially unviable

Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to explain why Property No. 435, which became vacant four months before the petition was filed, was re-let to a new tenant instead of being used for the son’s business

The Petitioner also re-let Property No. 436 to successive tenants during the pendency of the litigation and sold Property No. 440 (handing over vacant possession) shortly before filing the petition

The Court found that the Petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence for the alleged construction costs that necessitated the sale of Property No. 440

These factors collectively demonstrated that the Petitioner had access to similar ground-floor commercial spaces but chose to let or sell them, thereby casting serious doubt on the genuineness of the bona fide requirement

The Court found no perversity or error in the learned ARC’s judgment

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the impugned order dated 31.10.2019, which had dismissed the eviction petition

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly