The Delhi High Court has held that mere existence of an "alternative accommodation" with a landlord which is not "suitable" for his bona fide requirement cannot be treated as an alternative accommodation in the eyes of law, and that it is the landlord's sole prerogative to decide how he wishes to use his premises, not the tenant's.

A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee made these observations while dismissing a revision petition filed by a tenant challenging an eviction order passed against him under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in respect of a shop at Kailash Park, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.

​

BACKGROUND​

The respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition before the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Tis Hazari Courts, seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a ground floor shop on the ground of bona fide requirement — to enable his son to start a new business of selling electronics and communication items, citing the absence of any other suitable alternative accommodation.

The tenant, whose tenancy traced back to 1965, sought leave to defend, disputing the landlord's ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship itself, and contending that an earlier eviction petition filed in 1982 on similar grounds had been dismissed for want of such a relationship. The tenant also claimed that the landlord possessed several alternative properties and that the landlord's son was already gainfully employed, negating any bona fide requirement.

The ARC, vide order dated 15.05.2018, rejected the tenant's application for leave to defend, holding that no triable issue had been raised, and allowed the eviction petition. Aggrieved, the tenant approached the High Court in revision.

During the pendency of the revision, the tenant also filed applications seeking to place on record subsequent developments — namely that the landlord had since obtained vacant possession of two other properties (A-1, Sudama Puri and WZ-11, Kailash Park, Opposite Kriti Nagar) — arguing that this extinguished the bona fide requirement for the suit premises. A further application seeking to place unverified photographs on record, filed after arguments had already concluded, was also moved.

​

ARGUMENTS​

Counsel for the tenant argued that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties as the landlord had failed to produce ownership documents, and that the tenancy in fact stood in the name of a partnership firm. It was further contended that the landlord had concealed the existence of alternative accommodations and multiple eviction petitions, and that since the landlord's son was already working as a professional, no bona fide requirement survived.

Counsel for the landlord submitted that the tenant had himself admitted paying rent to the landlord, establishing the landlord-tenant relationship, and that none of the properties cited by the tenant qualified as suitable alternative accommodation — one being unsuitable for commercial use as it fell in a non-conforming area, and the other being occupied by the landlord's other son for a separate business.

​​

COURT'S OBSERVATION

On the question of landlord-tenant relationship, the Court noted that the tenant had himself admitted, in his reply as well as before the ARC, to paying rent and had narrated the chain of ownership devolving upon the landlord by way of family partition. This, the Court held, amounted to a deemed acceptance of the relationship.

On bona fide requirement, the Court reiterated the settled position that a landlord need not wait for his son to be unemployed to seek eviction for starting a business, and that a father seeking to settle his son in business constitutes a genuine cause. The Court observed:

"Any father, like the landlord herein, intending to settle his son by starting a new business is, in the considered opinion of this Court, a genuine cause/bona fide requirement for the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant from the subject premises."

Dealing with the plea of non-disclosure of alternative properties, the Court clarified that mere omission to disclose such properties in the pleadings cannot by itself disentitle a landlord from a decree of eviction, unless the tenant demonstrates a material link showing such omission affects the bona fides of the claim. The Court also drew a distinction between an "alternative" accommodation and an "additional" accommodation, holding that the two are not to be treated alike for the purposes of Section 14(1)(e).

Rejecting the tenant's contention that recovery of possession of other tenanted premises during the pendency of the petition extinguished the bona fide requirement, the Court held that recovery of another premises cannot be equated with a suitable alternative accommodation for the specific purpose for which the suit premises was sought. It observed that it is not for the tenant to dictate how the landlord ought to use his premises, and that the assessment of "suitability" must account for factors such as location, size, accessibility, intended use and safety — the mere availability of some other accommodation not being sufficient to defeat the landlord's claim.

The Court also declined to take on record the tenant's belated application seeking to place unverified photographs on record after arguments had concluded, holding that such photographs, filed without explanation for the delay, could not be permitted to improve the tenant's case at that stage.

​​

HELD

Affirming the ARC's order, the Court held that the tenant had failed to raise any triable issue and that no ground for interference existed under the limited scope of a revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act. The revision petition, along with the pending applications, was accordingly dismissed, and the tenant was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the shop within four weeks, subject to clearing arrears of user and occupation charges.

​​

APPERANCE

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Varun Tyagi, Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Ms. Shagun Gupta and Mr. Ishan Srivastava, Advocates

​

Case Title: Harbans Singh v. Anand Tyagi
Case No.: RC.REV. 304/2018, CM APPL. 26854/2018, CM APPL. 62844/2025
Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10771
Coram: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Date of Judgment: October 8, 2025