A revision petition challenging the rejection of the tenant's leave to defend in eviction proceedings was dismissed. The Court held that the landlord's need to settle his son in a ground-floor shop was bona fide, and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord's use of their own property.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SH. RAJENDER PRASAD JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:1 4.12.2024 13:19:58
Page 1 of 12
RC.REV. 172/2024
Control Act, 1958 i.e., the landlord-tenant relationship and the ownership, the same has not been disputed by the Petitioner.
“10. Alternate suitable property:
As to the third ingredient of availability of suitable alternate accommodation, the respondents have tried to give many advices to the petitioner. The respondent has stated that the premises number 5211, Kolhapur Road Sabji Mandi, Delhi is of 180 yd. and the most of the portion (as shown in the site plan filed by the petitioner after leaving the shop of the respondent at the ground floor) is in the control of the petitioner which constitutes around 150 to 160 yd. and beside this, there is a basement and first floor on the said premises itself which are under the possession of the petitioner and its roof right is also with the petitioner, whereas the respondent is having possession of only 10x10 space which is nothing in comparison to the portion possessed by the petitioner. The respondent has advised the petitioner that he is having huge space at basement, ground floor, first floor and also having roof upon which any construction can be made and separate portion can be given to both of his sons, moreover, 150 to 160 yd. available at the ground floor itself, is sufficient for his sons .
11. With respect to the property bearing No. 5211, Kolhapur Road Sabji Mandi, Delhi, the petitioner has explained that the property is consisting of basement, ground floor, first floor and terrace floor. He has stated that some portion on the ground floor and basement of this property is being used by the elder son of the petitioner namely Rajiv Jain for his separate proprietorship business, namely M/s Star Fab and the other shop on the ground floor of this property has already been sold by the petitioner and his brother way back on 26.06.2002 to one Surinder Kumar by virtue of a registered sale date. He has stated that the first floor of this property is residential in nature and terrace floor is without any construction. Once the petitioner has explained that the property is not available and vacant, it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how he can use the other properties, he is no one to advise the landlord to construct upon the terrace and fulfil his bona fide requirement. Property available with the petitioner should not only be vacant but should also be suitable. It
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:1 4.12.2024 13:19:58
Page 2 of 12
RC.REV. 172/2024
is neither for the tenant nor for the court to advise the landlord that from the portion which is in the possession of his ‘elder son, some space should be given to his younger son or he should construct upon the property and then property should be made available to petitioner for the use of his younger son.
xx xx xx
13 . The respondent claims that the petitioner purchased ground floor of property bearing No. 1 Jaipuria building, Kolhapur Road, Delhi, which was commercial property but he sold it recently . With this transaction, the respondent wants to indicate that the petitioner is having enough money to purchase a new property. This court of the opinion that it is not prudent for anyone to dictate the landlord that if he is having one of his properties in the possession of a tenant, he should allow the tenant to enjoy the property and he should buy a new property for his needs as he is having enough money . The respondent has only alleged barley that the property was sold recently. The respondent has not provided any date as to when the petitioner sold the property. The court has to see the availability of the property with the petitioner on the date of filing of the petition. Any transaction done prior to the filing petition is not relevant unless the bonafide need is doubted by the court.
xx xx xx
15. It is claimed by the respondent No.2 & 3 that between the basement and the ground floor, there is another floor which can be said to be an upper ground floor and the same is in the physical possession of Karan Jain (the younger son) who is running his independent business therein. No material however has been produced by them to justify their claim. Even otherwise, there cannot be any comparison between a shop at ground floor and some space between basement and ground floor . It is no well settled that a shop at ground floor will attract more customers in comparison with any other floor (see Mohd. Saleem vs Zaheer Ahamad 2023 SCC OnLineDel 1469, ViranWali vs Kuldeep Rai Kochhar 174 (2010) DLT 328, Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16, Uday Shankar Upadhyay vs Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503). It would be really preposterous to say that while the tenant will enjoy a prominent space for his business, son of the landlord shall squeeze himself somewhere between basement and ground floor.
16 . Respondent No.2 & 3 have also claimed that first floor of the property is commercial. Petitioner stand is clear that the said first
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:1 4.12.2024 13:19:58
Page 3 of 12
RC.REV. 172/2024
floor is residential. It was clearly then for the respondents to show that first floor was not only commercial but was also available to the petitioner . Nothing in this respect has been shown by the respondents. A bald claim obviously cannot justify anything.”
[Emphasis supplied]
“14. The availability of an alternative accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation , suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the
1 (1999) 6 SCC 222
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:1 4.12.2024 13:19:58
Page 4 of 12
RC.REV. 172/2024
finding as to the bona fides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14, which speaks of non-availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available then the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternative residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternative accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
7.1 The landlord is required to place prima facie material supported by adequate averments. Once this threshold is crossed, the onus of the proof shifts on the tenant to show that the need is not bona fide . [See Abid-ulIslam v. Inder Sain Dua2 ]
2 (2022) 6 SCC 30
3 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7396
4 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9289
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:1 4.12.2024 13:19:58
Page 5 of 12
RC.REV. 172/2024
reproduced below:
“ 57. It was also observed in the Sunil Kumar Goyal case and its desire to seek economic gain cannot make the need of the Respondent/Landlady mala fide:
“19. Mention may also be made of Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222 laying down that the term bona fide refers to a state of mind and a requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of his family. It was held that the Court should place itself in the armchair of the landlord and then ask the question to itself whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest and that if the answer is in the positive, the need is bona fide. It was further held that the Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his need. The concept of bona fide need was held to require a practical approach instructed by realities of life . An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against. ...”
[Emphasis Supplied] 9. The Petitioner has contended that in order to fulfil his requirement, the Respondent can either construct separate floor on the roof of the first floor or can use the first floor of the subject premises and a suggestion has also been given by the Petitioner that the basement or the upper ground floor can be used by the Respondent. All the alternate accommodation suggestions were examined and rejected by the Impugned Order as the ground floor and basement were being used by the elder son of the Respondent and the first floor is a residential property. So far as concerns the suggestion of the Respondent to the Petitioner to construct upon the terrace, the same is misconceived. It is settled law that the Court cannot
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:1 4.12.2024 13:19:58
Page 6 of 12
RC.REV. 172/2024
advise a landlord as to in what manner he should utilize his property.
9.1 It is well settled that neither the Court nor the tenant can dictate terms to the landlord. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.5 has held that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises.
9.2 A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan6 . It was held that tenant cannot dictate the terms of use of a property to a landlord and that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements. It is not for the Courts to dictate in what manner and how a landlord should live. This Court while relying on the Prativa Devi case has in the R.S. Chadha (thr. SPA) v. Thakur Dass7 held:
“13.1 It is settled law that the tenant cannot dictate the terms of use of a property to a landlord and that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements. It is not for the Courts to dictate in what manner and how a landlord should live. It is also not for the Courts to adjudicate that the landlord has a bonafide need or not. The Courts will generally accept the landlords need as bonafide. The Supreme Court in the case of Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan [ (1996) 5 SCC 353] has directed:
“2 . The proven facts are that the appellant who is a widow, since the demise of her husband late Shiv Nath Mukherjee, has been staying as a guest with Shri N.C. Chatterjee who was a family friend of her late husband, at B-4/20, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. There is nothing to show that she has any kind of right whatever to stay in the house of Shri Chatterjee. On the other hand, she is there merely by sufferance. The reason given by the High Court that the appellant is an old lady aged about 70 years and has no one to look after her and therefore she should continue to live with Shri Chatterjee, was hardly a
5 (1998) 8 SCC 119
6 (1996) 5 SCC 353
7 2024 SCC OnLine Del 47
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:1 4.12.2024 13:19:58
Page 7 of 12
RC.REV. 172/2024
ground sufficient for interference. The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own . The High Court is rather solicitous about the age of the appellant and thinks that because of her age she needs to be looked after. Now, that is a lookout of the appellant and not of the High Court. We fail to appreciate the High Court giving such a gratuitous advice which was uncalled for. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property. We accordingly reverse the finding reached by the High Court and restore that of the Rent Controller that the appellant had established her bona fide requirement of the demised premises for her personal use and occupation, which finding was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence in the light of the surrounding circumstances .”
13.2 In any event, it is only the Respondent/landlord and his family who can decide what is sufficient space as per their needs and requirements. Sufficiency of residential accommodation for any person would essentially be dependent on multiple factors, including his living standard and general status in society . In view of the fact that admittedly the Respondent/landlord has a large family, it is not open to the Petitioner/tenant to contend that requirement of 6 rooms as pleaded by the Respondent/landlord, is not bonafide.
13.3 The Trial Court has dealt with the sufficiency of accommodation of the Respondent/landlord in the Impugned Order. This Court finds no reason to impugn these findings.”
[Emphasis supplied]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:1 4.12.2024 RC.REV. 172/2024 13:19:58
Page 8 of 12
business. In Uday Shankar Upadhyay v. Naveen Maheshwari8 , the Supreme Court has held that the Court cannot dictate to the landlord as to that extent which floor he must use for his business, besides shops and businesses are usually conducted on the ground floor.
10.1 It is well settled that the ground floor is more suitable for commercial purposes and businesses. If there is availability of space on the ground floor with the landlord, there is no question of the tenant asking him to take alternate premises or to operate out of a mezzanine, which is not a complete floor. The need of the Respondent/landlord thus cannot be said not to be bona fide.
“20. In view of the above, it is settled that the Landlord is the best judge of his requirements, and he also has the complete authority to prioritize the needs of his family and those who are dependent on him over any hardship that might be caused to the tenant . In the instant case, the son of the Landlord is currently unemployed, has no alternative accommodation and is dependent on his father. Therefore, it cannot be said that the requirement of the Landlord is not bona-
8 (2010) 1 SCC 503
9 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2029
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:1 4.12.2024 13:19:58
Page 9 of 12
RC.REV. 172/2024
fide .”
[Emphasis Supplied]
“Scope of revision
“22. We are, in fact, more concerned with the scope and ambit of the proviso to Section 25-B(8). The proviso creates a distinct and unequivocal embargo by not providing an appeal against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller over an application filed under sub-section (5). The intendment of the legislature is very clear, which is to remove the appellate remedy and thereafter, a further second appeal. It is a clear omission that is done by the legislature consciously through a covenant removing the right of two stages of appeals.
23. The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court exclusive power of revision against an order of the learned Rent Controller, being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior court on the decision-making process, inclusive of procedural compliance. Thus, the High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views with that of the trial court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Its role is to satisfy itself on the process adopted. The scope of interference by the High Court is very
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:1 4.12.2024 13:19:58
Page 10 of 12
RC.REV. 172/2024
restrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record , which would only mean that in the absence of any adjudication per se, the High Court should not venture to disturb such a decision. There is no need for holding a roving inquiry in such matters which would otherwise amount to converting the power of superintendence into that of a regular first appeal, an act, totally forbidden by the legislature.
xxx
25. The aforesaid decision has been recently considered and approved by this Court in Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal [Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal, (2020) 7 SCC 327 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 107] : (SCC pp. 340-41, paras 22-23)
“22. This Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119] had an occasion to consider the scope of proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This Court found, that though the word “revision” was not employed in the said proviso, from the language used therein, the legislative intent was clear that the power conferred was revisional power. This Court observed thus : (SCC p. 124, para 11)
‘11. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in the present case has reassessed and reappraised the evidence afresh to reach a different finding as though it was exercising appellate jurisdiction. No doubt even while exercising revisional jurisdiction, a reappraisal of evidence can be made, but that should be for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact-finding court is wholly unreasonable.’
It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that the High Court while exercising the revisional powers under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 though could not reassess and reappraise the evidence, as if it was exercising appellate jurisdiction, however, it was empowered to reappraise the evidence for the limited purpose so as to ascertain whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact-finding court is wholly unreasonable .
[Emphasis supplied]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:1 4.12.2024 13:19:58
Page 11 of 12
RC.REV. 172/2024
which is accordingly dismissed. The pending Application stands disposed of. Interim protection granted by this Court on 14.08.2024 stands vacated. 15. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
NOVEMBER 20, 2024/r/ ha/gj Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Da te:1 4.12.2024 RC.REV. 172/2024 13:19:58
Page 12 of 12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Respondent/Landlord has a bona fide need for the premises to settle his son for business purposes.
Whether the alternate accommodation available with the Landlord is reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need.
Whether the scope of revisional jurisdiction permits the Court to substitute its view on the merits with that of the Trial Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand GuptaRelied on¶37
Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222 · Who else cites this
Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain DuaRelied on¶46
Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022) 6 SCC 30 · Who else cites this
Swaranjit Singh and Anr. v. Saroj KapoorRelied on¶47
Swaranjit Singh and Anr. v. Saroj Kapoor 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7396 · Who else cites this
Sunil Kumar Goyal vs Harbans SinghReferred¶47
Sunil Kumar Goyal vs Harbans Singh 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9289 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Saleem vs Zaheer AhamadReferred¶28
Mohd. Saleem vs Zaheer Ahamad 2023 SCC OnLineDel 1469 · Who else cites this
ViranWali vs Kuldeep Rai KochharReferred¶28
ViranWali vs Kuldeep Rai Kochhar 174 (2010) DLT 328 · Who else cites this
Dhannalal vs KalawatibaiReferred¶28
Dhannalal vs Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16 · Who else cites this
Uday Shankar Upadhyay vs Naveen MaheshwariRelied on¶28
Uday Shankar Upadhyay vs Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503 · Who else cites this
Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.Relied on¶64
Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 · Who else cites this
Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. KrishnanRelied on¶65
Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353 · Who else cites this
R.S. Chadha (thr. SPA) v. Thakur DassRelied on¶65
R.S. Chadha (thr. SPA) v. Thakur Dass 2024 SCC OnLine Del 47 · Who else cites this
Bosco Joseph v. Raj KumarRelied on¶86
Bosco Joseph v. Raj Kumar 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2029 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar SinghalReferred¶106
Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal (2020) 7 SCC 327 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SH. BHAJAN LAL
SH. RAJENDER PRASAD JAIN
TARA VITASTA GANJU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
