Landlord Being 'Best Judge' Of His Needs Doesn't Dispense With Proof Of Genuine Need For Tenant's Eviction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that while a landlord is ordinarily considered the “best judge” of his requirements, this principle does not relieve him of the legal burden to prove a bona fide and genuine need with cogent evidence while seeking eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the observation while dismissing a revision petition filed by a landlord challenging the rejection of his eviction plea under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

The eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for expansion of business activities.

The Court noted that it was incumbent upon the landlord to establish not only a genuine business requirement but also the absence of any reasonably suitable alternative accommodation.

However, on a perusal of the record, the Court found that the landlord had failed to discharge this burden during the course of trial. It observed,

“He (landlord) neither produced any statutory document(s) like GST records, Income Tax Returns, etc. nor photographs to prove his aforesaid case. The landlord was unable to show the alleged business stock for which the subject premises was required or the numerous other businesses mentioned. This, being the very backbone of his bona fide requirement for a bigger space like the subject premises was more than essential.”

The Court acknowledged that as held by the Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1995), a landlord is the best judge of his needs.

However, it emphasised that the same judgment also holds that the need urged by the landlord must be genuine, sincere, honest, natural, and the like.

“Interestingly, the landlord, despite being put through the rigors of trial, never made any whisper as to why the other alternative accommodations being godowns, which were located in the very same market as the shop of the landlord, were not reasonably suitable for the said purpose,” the Court observed in the facts of the case.”

As such, it refused to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition.

Appearance: Mr. S. N. Gupta, Advocate for Petitioner

Case title: Sh. Sanket Behari Mittal v. Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 66

Case no.: RC.REV. 589/2019

Click here to read order