When Tenant Is Evicted For Bonafide Use, Courts Should Refrain From Prescribing Guidelines For Landlord’s Residential Choices: Delhi High Court

Granting relief to a landlord who evicted a tenant from his shop for setting up a business for his wife which constitutes as a “bona fide requirement”, the Delhi High Court has said that courts should refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the residential choices of a landlord.

Emphasizing that the tenant cannot dictate as to how the landlord must utilize the property, Justice Jasmeet Singh said:

“The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard. It is not within the purview of the courts to impose directives on the landlord regarding the nature or quality of their chosen usage of the tenanted premises. Essentially, the courts should refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the landlord's residential choices.”

The court was dealing with a plea moved by the landlord challenging an order passed by the Rent Controller wherein leave to defend was granted to the tenant.

The landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the tenant from a shop on the ground of a bona fide need stating that his wife, who is an MBA, was seeking to establish her own business of consultancy.

On receipt of summons, the tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend in the suit supported with an affidavit stating that the landlord was not the owner of the suit property and that the sale deed was forged and fabricated.

The Rent Controller granted leave to defend on the ground that the very existence of custom and customary divorce between the landlord and his first wife was doubtful and therefore, the same was a triable issue. It was also observed that the eviction petition was for additional accommodation and not for a bona fide accommodation.

While setting aside the Rent Controller’s order, the court said that it is not open to a tenant in an eviction petition to question the status of the alleged second wife of the petitioner landlord.

“…the learned ARC misconstrued the scope of the Delhi Rent Control Act by opining that the existence of marriage between the petitioner and Ms. Shivani Chaudhary/existence of a custom and customary divorce between the petitioner and his first wife Ms. Indra Devi was a triable issue,” the court said.

Furthermore, Justice Singh said that landlord is only required to show that the requirement of the tenanted premises is a bona fide requirement and not merely a whimsical or a fanciful desire by him.

The court observed that once the landlord has stated that he requires the tenanted property for a particular use, courts are required to believe the statement to be true and genuine, unless and until it is shown by the tenant through cogent material that the requirement is fanciful or whimsical.

“I am of the view that the petitioner’s ground that he requires the tenanted premises for setting up the business of his wife comes within the category of a bona fide requirement. Keeping in view the above discussion that the petitioner has successfully shown his bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for his wife Ms. Shivani Chaudhary, the second ingredient of section 14(1)(e) is fulfilled,” the court said.

Allowing the plea, the court said that the landlord had successfully shown that the tenanted premises was the only premises which was best suitable accommodation for setting up the consultancy business of his wife, and thus the ingredient of bona fide requirement was satisfied.

“…order of eviction with respect to Shop….. is passed, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent,” the court said.

Title: TARUN KUMAR v. PARMANAND GARG

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1165

Click Here To Read Order