Landlord's Solvency Or Tenant's Financial Instability Not Relevant Considerations For Deciding Eviction Petition: Delhi High Court

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made the observation while disagreeing with the plea of Respondent-tenants that their landlords are financially well-to-do NRIs and do not require the subject premises for their subsistence.

Section 14(1)(e) of the Act empowers the Rent Controller to order eviction of a tenant if the premises are required by the landlord for bona fide use and he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

Respondents contended that the eviction petitions were not filed with a bona-fidé requirement but on a mere desire, which cannot be the basis for eviction.

Stating that such an argument is “wholly uncalled-for and illegal”, the bench observed,

“It may be observed that the financial well-being of a landlord, or the financial ill-health of a tenant, are not relevant considerations while deciding an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.”

The Court also criticised the Rent Controller for refusing eviction and “foisting” its own assessment on whether the Petitioner-landlords could use the premises successfully.

Significant to note that Petitioners sought to use the tenanted premises for expanding their restaurant business in India. The Rent Controller however held that given the measurements of the subject premises, a restaurant cannot be run from those premises alone.

It had also held that since Petitioners are settled-in London and Dubai, they did not require the subject premises for their “subsistence or survival”; and therefore their bonafidé requirement did not amount to being an “actual need”.

The High Court held that whether the landlords are able to run a full-fledged restaurant or a cloud kitchen is entirely their prerogative and the bona-fidés of their requirement cannot be discounted merely on the Rent Controller's assessment of whether a food business can be run from the subject premises.

On the question of bona-fidé requirement, the High Court found, “the petitioners…are engaged in the restaurant business in London, United Kingdom, they would want to open a food-related business in Delhi, India which is where they originally belong.”

As such, the petitions were allowed and the Court ordered eviction.

Appearance: Ms. Devna Soni, Mr. Jatin Sehgal, Mr. Ashish Garg, Ms. Simran Bajaj and Mr. Shubham Aggarwal, Advocates for Petitioners; Mr. S.C. Singhal, Mr. Saideep Kaushik and Mr. Parth Mahajan, Advocates for Respondent

Case title: Mrs Madhurbhashani & Ors v. Ranjit Singh (and connected matter)

Case no.: RC.REV. 95/2014

Click here to read order