Landlord Is Best Judge Of His Own Needs, Not Tenant Or Court: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a landlord is the best judge of his needs, and cannot be thrusted with the opinion of the tenant or the Court.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee said that once landlord establishes that the property wherefrom he is seeking eviction of the tenant is required bona fide by him, the issue of availability of alternative accommodation is merely incidental.

“Moreover, it is the prerogative of the landlord, based on his subjective assessment, to choose an accommodation that reasonably satisfy his requirement. A landlord being the best judge of his needs cannot be thrusted with the opinion of the tenant or the Court,” the Court said.

The judge was dealing with a plea filed by the landlords seeking eviction of the tenant from the property.

It was the landlords' case that the property was originally purchased by the their grandfather in 1947 and was mutated in the name of their mother. The tenant disputed the ownership, alleging a prior agreement and possession transfer.

The landlords claimed bona fide requirement of the property for personal accommodation, citing medical reasons and uninhabitable present residence.

Vide the impugned order, the Additional Rent Controller allowed the tenant's application for leave to defend, holding that triable issue were raised and therefore the landlords' projected requirement needed to “be tested at the touch-stone of evidence or cross-examination”.

Ruling in favour of landlords, Justice Banerjee said that the landlords were able to demonstrate in form of sale deed in the name of their grandfather, mutation in favour of their mother and the Aadhar Card establishing their relationship with their mother.

The Court said that there was hardly any material of any credence before the Additional Rent Controller to doubt the ownership of the landlords so as to warrant grant of leave.

It added that the landlords produced sufficient proof and photographs of their current accommodation in dilapidated condition, which was sufficient for concluding that they indeed had bona fide requirement of the subject premises.

The judge passed an eviction order in favour of the landlords in respect of the subject premises. However, it said that in view of Section 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the order for recover of possession of the property shall not be executed before expiry of six months.

Title: MS FARHEEN ISRAIL & ANR v. GHULAM RASOOL WANI & ORS

Click here to read order