Delhi High Court Upholds Landlord's Right to Evict Tenant for Bona Fide Requirement

Court Affirms Eviction Under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for Landlord's Son's Business Needs

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the eviction of a tenant from a shop under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, citing the landlord's bona fide requirement for the premises to commence a business for his son. The judgment was delivered by Justice Saurabh Banerjee on October 8, 2025, concerning the case Harbans Singh v. Anand Tyagi.

The case revolved around the landlord's petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, asserting the need to use the premises for his son's new electronics and communication business. Despite the tenant's objections, including claims of alternative accommodations available to the landlord and the landlord's son being gainfully employed, the court found the landlord's requirement to be genuine and upheld the eviction order.

Justice Banerjee emphasized that the landlord demonstrated a genuine, honest, and bona fide need for the premises and rejected the tenant's contention that alternative accommodations disqualified the landlord from seeking eviction. The court noted that the tenant failed to establish any triable issues regarding the landlord-tenant relationship, the bona fide requirement, or the availability of alternative accommodations.

The judgment also addressed the tenant's revision petition challenging the eviction order. The court dismissed the petition, citing no exceptional circumstances or errors apparent on the record. It reinforced the principle that landlords have the prerogative to choose how their property is used, provided their requirement is genuine.

This ruling reiterates the legal stance that mere availability of alternative accommodations does not automatically negate a landlord's claim for eviction based on bona fide requirements. It affirms the landlord's right to seek eviction to facilitate a family member's business plans.

The Delhi High Court's decision provides clarity on the application of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, particularly concerning eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirements, and underscores the importance of genuine need in such cases.

Bottom Line:

Eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Bona fide requirement of premises for landlord's son's business purpose upheld - Tenant failed to establish triable issues regarding landlord-tenant relationship, bona fide requirement, and alternative accommodation.

Statutory provision(s): Section 14(1)(e), Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Harbans Singh v. Anand Tyagi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2800049