Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 05, 2025
76727/2025-Exp, CM APPL. 76728/2025-Delay 64 days in re- filing
SMT JASBIR KAUR DECEASED & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Jain and Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocates
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. The respondent/ landlord (landlord) instituted an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) before the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (learned RC) seeking eviction of the petitioners/ tenants (tenants) from premises bearing no.WZ-812, Ram Chander Basti, Nangal Raya, Delhi- 110 046 (subject premises).
2. Before the learned RC, it was the case of the landlord that he was/ is owner of the subject premises by virtue of registered Will dated 11.05.1987 and was in bona fide requirement of the subject premises for his unmarried daughter’s residence as well as for setting up a boutique for her therein and since there were no suitable alternative accommodation available with him for the said purpose.
3. Upon service of summons, tenants filed their application seeking leave to defend though disputing the ownership of the landlord, however, admitting the landlord tenant relationship between the parteis, bona fide requirement and the (non-)availability of alternate accommodation.
4. The learned RC, after considering the material on record and hearing the parties, vide order dated 30.07.2025 (impugned order), dismissed the application seeking leave to defend of the tenants and proceeded to pass the eviction order in favour of the landlord.
5. Hence the present revision petition filed by the petitioners/ tenants seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned RC.
6. Though the tenants have raised various grounds, however, learned counsel for the tenants does not wish to harp upon the existance of landlord tenant relationship, since it was admitted from the very inception. The landlord tenant relationship, in view of the tenants’ categoric admission has been held to be established. The learned counsel, however, submits that since the landlord was/ is in possession of several other accommodations and that his bona fide requirement was neither honest nor sincere as both daughter and son of the landlord were gainfully employed, the tenants were able to disclose sufficient facts in their leave to defend application to raise a triable issue, and thus, the learned RC was duty-bound to grant leave. The learned counsel relies upon Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Anr. vs. Prem Deva Niranajan Deva Tayal: (1982) 3 SCC 270; Inderjeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh: (2001) 1 SCC 706; Vijay Kumar Ahluwalia & Ors. vs. Bishan Chand Maheshwari & Anr.: Civil Appeal No.1546 of 2017.
7. Heard learned counsel for the tenants, as also, gone through the documents and pleadings on record and the judgments cited at Bar.
8. Since the existence of a landlord tenant relationship between the parties is admitted, and there is no challenge to the findings qua that in the impugned order, it does not call for any interference by this Court.
9. Considering that it was the case of the landlord that he had a bona fide requirement of the subject premises for residential use of her unmarried and unemployed daughter as also for enabling her to set up a boutique therein as he has no such/ other place, and for this he was having no other suitable alternative accommodation available, it cannot be said to be an unreal, ungenuine, and invalid need of a father for her daughter. Though the tenants had asserted that the landlord was running a gym from another premises, however, the same was of no effect as the landlord had himself pleaded, in his Eviction Petition, that it was his son who was running the same, as also the tenants had never adduced any credible material to either controvert that or establish any nexus thereto with the Eviction Petition.
10. Similarly, though the onus squarly lay upon the tenants to establish availability of alternative accommodation, the tenants merely asserted about the landlord being in possession of vacant rooms in property nos.812A and 1268 as also have property No.1326A, Tilak Nagar and have not substantiated the same with any evidence. Conversely, the landlord categorically denied availability of any such suitable alternative accommodation as there were no rooms available in property no.812A; and the property no.1268, Tilak Nagar was comprising only the ground floor, where his son is running a gym; and the property no.1326A, Tilak Nagar, was itself a tenanted premises from which his son is also operating a gym.
11. In effect, barring bald and vague assertions by the tenants, there was nothing substantially/ constructively material worthy of substantiation/ credence on record for having raised a traible issue before the learned RC.
12. Under such circumstnaces, since the landlord was able to show his genuineness of the requirement, and it was/ is the prerogative of the landlord to choose reasonably suitable and convenient accommodation, the tenants had no say thereon and could not dictate terms.
13. In any event, simply because the daughter of the landlord was gainfully employed and working, and/ or that his son was operating a gym from another premises, did not preclude the landlord from initiating eviction proceedings for seeking eviction of the tenants from the subject premises.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the tenants were unable to raise any triable issue before the learned RC.
15. At this stage, it is imperative to note that the tenant(s) cannot be granted leave merely on the strength of bald, vague and unsubstantiated assertions, since it is incumbent for the tenant(s) to furnish some reliable, worthy and cogent material in support thereof to raise at least a semblance of plausibility to the defence. In the absence of such material, every tenant, by resorting to smart drafting would be able to clothe frivolous or moonshine allegations in a manner that would invariably lead to grant of leave to defend in all cases. There has to be a culmination to the eviction proceedings. The proceedings under Chapter III-A was incorporated in the DRC Act are in the nature of summary procedure and the intent/ purpose of the legislature behind the same is very clear and would be frustrated by prolonging the agony of the landlord.
16. In this context, this Court finds able support in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua: (2022) 6 SCC 30, wherein it is held as under:
17. In the similar vein, this Court in Hari Shankar vs. Madan Mohan Gupta: 111 (2004) DLT 534 has held that:
18. In view of the aforesaid analysis and reasoning, reliance placed upon Precision Steel (supra) and Inderjeet Kaur (supra) being misplaced, does not come to the aid of the tenants.
19. Lastly, reliance placed upon the decision of Vijay Kumar (supra) is also misplaced as that was a case where the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a tenant who was able to set out a prima facie case, sufficient on the basis of the materials before the learned Controller, to have held that a triable issue was raised, which in view of the aforesaid, is not the position in the present proceeding.
20. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is in agreement with the findings rendered by the learned RC in the impugned order dated 30.07.2025. As such, there is no reason or ground for this Court to interfere with the impugned order and/ or set aside the same.
21. Accordingly, the present petition along with the pending applications is dismissed in liminie.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J. DECEMBER 05, 2025/NA/GA