Supreme Court: Appellate Courts Cannot Overturn Trial Court Verdicts Without Independent Reasons  ||  Supreme Court Acquits Three Men in 1979 Murder Case, Finding Serious Flaws in the Prosecution Case  ||  Supreme Court: Magistrate Cannot Order Filing of Chargesheet After Police Submit Closure Report  ||  Supreme Court: Landowners Cannot Claim Denial of Hearing After Failing to Avail the Opportunity  ||  Supreme Court: Property in Sale Deed Cannot Be Altered by Rectification Without Transferor's Consent  ||  Ahead of Rath Yatra, Orissa High Court Stays Release of 'Mahaprabhu Jagannath' Over Peace Concerns  ||  Gujarat High Court: Ancient Hindu Law Did Not Recognise Adoption of Girls Before HAMA  ||  Bombay High Court Orders DGP to Assess CCTV Systems and Footage Preservation at Police Stations  ||  Allahabad HC: Mother Receiving Maintenance from Real Son Cannot Claim it from Step-Son  ||  CCPA Imposes Rs.1 Lakh Penalty on SpiceJet Over Dark Patterns Used for Loyalty Programme Consent    

Ranvir Singh Vs. Rajinder Kumar Jain - (High Court of Delhi) (18 Oct 2019)

Bonafide necessity would lie only if there is a bonafide need as distinct from a mere desire for additional space

MANU/DE/3403/2019

Tenancy

Petitioner impugns order whereby the leave to defend application of the Petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order passed. Eviction petition was filed by the respondent on bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking eviction of the Petitioner.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contends that, what Respondent has contended is a mere desire as distinct from a bonafide necessity to expand. He submits that no material has been placed to even prima facie show that there is any bonafide need.

A petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of Act, 1958 on the ground of bonafide necessity would lie only if there is a bonafide need as distinct from a mere desire for additional space. Respondent has not placed on any material to even prima facie establish that there is a bonafide need to expand the business as distinct from mere desire or wish to expand the business.

As the plea of the Respondent is that material is available to establish that there is a genuine and bonafide need for expansion of business and for additional accommodation and no material is filed on record, an opportunity would be required to be given to the respondent to place on record additional material and to lead evidence. Further, application for leave to defend shows triable issues arise in the case. Petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of his application seeking leave to defend has raised grounds which, if proved, would disentitle the landlord of an order of eviction.

In view of the above, impugned order declining leave to defend is set aside. Leave to defend the eviction petition is granted to the Petitioner. Keeping in view the fact that petition was filed in the year 2013 and the respondent is aged 77 years, Rent Controller is directed to expedite the proceedings and endeavour to conclude the same within a period of nine months from the date fixed before the Rent Controller. Petition is allowed.

Tags : EVICTION   LEAVE TO DEFEND   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved