SC: High Courts Exercising Probate Jurisdiction Can Order Probes Into Estate Irregularities  ||  SC: High Courts Exercising Probate Jurisdiction Can Order Probes Into Estate Irregularities  ||  Supreme Court Grants Bail to Undertrial Jailed For 9 Years, Citing Violation of Article 21 Rights  ||  Supreme Court: Appellate Courts Reversing Acquittal Must Themselves Hear Convicts on Sentence  ||  SC: Party Accepting Extension of Arbitrator’s Mandate Cannot Later Challenge Award on Expiry Grounds  ||  Supreme Court: Life Sentence Can Be Modified Into a Fixed-Term Sentence in Appropriate Cases  ||  Supreme Court Upholds EC Authority to Conduct SIR of Electoral Rolls For Free & Fair Elections  ||  Supreme Court Expresses Concern over NEET-UG 2026 Cancellation, Stating NTA Has Not Learned Lessons  ||  Supreme Court: Off-Duty Anaesthetist Cannot be Held Criminally Liable For Nurse’s Procedural Error  ||  Centre To Delhi HC: Eviction of Delhi Gymkhana Club Will be Carried Out After Due Notice under Law    

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