Facts of the Case

This case has nothing to do with GST — it is a landlord-tenant eviction dispute governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Rajiv Mehra and another (siblings and co-owners of property at Mahavir Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi) had filed an eviction petition against their tenant, Ravi Bhushan, under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, seeking to recover the first-floor portion of the demised premises on the ground of bonafide requirement — specifically, that petitioner no.2's adult son, Rahul (an MBA graduate), needed the premises to start his own cloth business in the well-known cloth market. The Rent Controller (CCJ-cum-ARC, Tis Hazari Courts) dismissed the eviction petition on 17.03.2018, holding that the landlords had other suitable alternative accommodation available. The landlords filed RC.REV. 341/2018 before the Delhi High Court challenging that dismissal.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the landlords had genuinely established bonafide requirement of the demised premises for the son's business.
  2. Whether the tenant had discharged the onus of proving that the landlords possessed other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation, disentitling them from seeking eviction.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The landlords required the demised premises bonafide for their son to start a cloth business, and they had no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available for that purpose — the other properties mentioned in the pleadings were either occupied by other tenants or otherwise unsuitable.
  • The learned Rent Controller had erred by treating the respondent's bald, hearsay assertions about other available accommodation as sufficient, without any documentary or sterling evidence and without cross-examination establishing the point.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The tenant contended, before the Rent Controller, that the landlords had other suitable alternative accommodation (including shops at New Krishna Market and Ballimaran) and therefore did not genuinely need the demised premises.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Delhi High Court held that, in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e), the onus lies on the tenant to prove with sterling evidence that the landlord has other suitable alternative accommodation — bald averments based on hearsay, without documentary support, are insufficient.
  • On a review of the cross-examination and the list of tenants/rent receipts on record, the Court found that all the other properties referred to were shown to be occupied by tenants, and no specific question had even been put to the landlords about the availability of the Ballimaran property.
  • The Rent Controller was found to have erred by accepting the tenant's version as a 'gospel truth' without properly analysing the evidence on record.
  • The revision petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and an eviction order was passed with respect to the first-floor portion of the demised premises in favour of the landlords.
  • As required under Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, the eviction order was directed to be executed only after expiry of six months from the date of the judgment.

Important Clarification

This case confirms the well-settled rule that a tenant resisting eviction on the ground of the landlord's alleged alternative accommodation must prove it with real (not hearsay) evidence — mere assertions, without documents or effective cross-examination, will not defeat a landlord's otherwise bonafide claim for possession.

Sections Involved

  • Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 14(1)(e) (eviction for bonafide requirement), Section 14(7) (stay of execution), Section 25-B(8) (revision to High Court)

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the Petitioners/Landlords, Rajiv Mehra & Anr. — the revision was allowed, the dismissal of the eviction petition was set aside, and an eviction order was passed in their favour.

Case Details

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | RC.REV. 341/2018 | Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh | Judgment reserved: 10.07.2023; pronounced: 12.10.2023.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.