Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently allowed an eviction petition by a landlord seeking space rented on the ground floor, for his daughters to start their business.

"There is a certain self-worth which a person acquires by running his or her own business and this aspiration cannot be questioned in a proceeding for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises", court said.

Justice Najmi Waziri, while allowing the petition, observed, “A plea of bonafide requirement has to be pivoted on the fact that the landlord had no other suitable alternative accommodation and there was a need for the same, not a mere wish. The landlord was not required to file details of his income tax returns and not filing the same along with the eviction petition would neither whittle away nor cast a doubt on the bonafide need, which is otherwise made out in the eviction petition. The ‘sufficiency’ of income of a landlord or that he was well-off cannot be an issue for examination in eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act. For who can sit in judgment as to what is sufficient finance for a person or his/her family. There can be no check, hindrance or curtailment to aspirations of an individual.”

On the finding that the petitioner-landlord should have known the receipts of income from the business in hotels run by his wife, court said, “The aforesaid inquiry was neither relevant nor necessary because, for the purposes of a petition under section 141(1)(e) read with section 25B of the DRC Act, only the availability of suitable alternate accommodation is to be seen. It also presupposes that a husband has a right to know all details of his wife’s business and financial affairs, as if the wife had no right to financial and business confidentiality or personal independence or privacy. There cannot be an assumption that the wife is subservient to her husband and is obliged to disclose to or share with her husband details of all her financials.”

On married daughters being dependents of their parents, court said, “Ordinarily, for a daughter, irrespective of her matrimonial status, her paternal/maternal home is always a psychological, physical and emotional sanctuary, a place to which she can relate and return to freely, irrespective of how far she is geographically located from her parents. The law provides for eviction of a tenant on the need of dependants. Married daughters are included among dependents of their parents, for commercial/residential space. The test in law is about the dependency of the children upon the landlord/ landlady when the property of the parent is in question.”

Brief Background

The petitioner/landlord challenged the decision dated 07.06.2018 passed by Addl. Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Court, whereby his eviction petition was dismissed. It was opined by the court below that since the landlord did not disclose the other properties belonging to him, he was not entitled to the relief sought.

The eviction was sought under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the following grounds –

(i) The tenanted premises were required for bonafide use by the landlord and his family members;

(ii) No suitable alternative accommodation was available;

(iii) The landlord’s two married daughters were unemployed but were well-educated and had commercial aspirations, for which they required space and were dependent on their father.

Case Title: Nisar Ahmed v. Agya Pal Singh | RC Rev. 367 of 2018, CM Appl. 13453 of 2023 and CM Appl. 22041 of 2023