The tenant argued before the Delhi High Court that the landlord and his daughter were settled abroad and the daughter’s intention to practice law in India was legally uncertain. (Image enhanced using AI)
Court’s analysis on requirement
- The Delhi High Court upheld the findings of the rent controller and rejected the tenant’s objections, emphasising that a landlord’s subjective desire to return to India must be respected unless proven dishonest.
- Courts cannot question the wisdom or timing of such a decision and even irregular visits to India do not negate a future intention to settle.
- Significantly, the court noted that prior to shifting, a landlord cannot be expected to demonstrate frequent stays or maintain records anticipating litigation.
- In a significant reiteration of landlord rights, the Delhi High Court stressed that choice of residence is the landlord’s prerogative and tenants cannot compel landlords to remain abroad or deny them use of their own property and bona fide (genuine, real) requirements must be assessed realistically, not with suspicion.
Background
The dispute concerns a residential property in Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, which had been leased to Batliboi Limited in 1976 at a monthly rent of Rs 1,150. The property originally belonged to the landlord’s mother and later devolved upon her legal heirs, including respondent Kiran Sharma.
After years of alleged rent default since 1997 and unsuccessful earlier litigation, Sharma initiated eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in 2015, citing bona fide (genuine, real) residential requirements for himself and his family.
The rent controller allowed the eviction in April 2023, leading to the present challenge before the Delhi High Court.
What court was hearing
The Delhi High Court was adjudicating whether the landlord had successfully established a requirement of the tenanted premises, particularly in light of his residence in Malaysia and the tenant’s contention that the need was neither genuine nor immediate.
Story continues below this ad
The tenant argued that the landlord and his daughter were settled abroad and the daughter’s intention to practice law in India was legally uncertain. The landlord had earlier demanded higher rent, suggesting a commercial motive and alternate accommodations were allegedly available.
The landlord, on the other hand, maintained that he intended to relocate to India permanently and the property was needed for himself, his daughter, and visiting family members. He had no suitable alternative accommodation in Delhi.
On daughter’s professional plans
Addressing the tenant’s argument regarding the landlord’s daughter who had a foreign law degree the court held that regulatory restrictions do not bar her from undertaking consultancy or advisory work in India.
Her professional aspirations, coupled with residential need, supported the landlord’s case and in any event, the eviction petition was primarily based on residential requirement, not commercial use.
Story continues below this ad
The Delhi High Court found no merit in the tenant’s claim that the landlord had access to other properties in Delhi. It noted that no documentary proof was produced by the tenant and allegations regarding other properties were inconsistent and unsupported.
The burden to prove availability of alternative accommodation lies on the tenant, which remained unfulfilled.
The Delhi High Court said that no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the requirement set up by the respondent is sham or mala fide. “Hence, even if it is assumed that the Respondent and his family members were not frequent visitors to Delhi in the past, the same does not dilute or discredit their bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises,” said the court.
Earlier proceedings no bar
The tenant also argued that a prior eviction petition filed in 1997 barred fresh proceedings. Rejecting this, the court clarified that the earlier case was dismissed for non-prosecution, not on merits, therefore, principles of res judicata did not apply.
Story continues below this ad
The Delhi High Court also dismissed the tenant’s claim of ownership by adverse possession, reiterating that a tenant cannot claim hostile possession against the landlord.
The relationship of landlord and tenant remained admitted and continuous litigation by the landlord negated any claim of hostile possession.
No infirmity
Finding no infirmity in the rent controller’s order, the Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition, effectively clearing the way for eviction of the tenant company.
The ruling reinforces a consistent judicial approach that NRIs and overseas residents retain full rights to reclaim their properties in India for personal use, provided their intention is genuine and not a pretext for eviction.
The tenant argued before the Delhi High Court that the landlord and his daughter were settled abroad and the daughter’s intention to practice law in India was legally uncertain. (Image enhanced using AI)