Landlady Can Require Tenanted Premises For Welfare Of Husband To Fulfill Her Housewife Duties: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a landlady who is also a housewife can require her tenanted premises for the welfare and betterment of her own husband in the course of fulfilling her familial duties.

The Court was considering a Revision Petition against an order of the Additional Rent Controller by which it allowed an Eviction Petition filed by the landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground that her husband, who is unemployed and dependent on her, required the same to start his dry fruits business. 

The Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed, "Once it was the case of the landlady that she required the subject premises for the welfare and betterment of her own husband in the course of fulfilment of her familial duties, neither the tenant, nor even the Court, could have any say in the same. As held in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta 1999 (6) SCC 222, the landlady had only to show that the requirement urged by her was honest, genuine, sincere, and the like, and not a product of her whims and fancies, which was more than fulfilled in the present case before the learned ARC."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Mala Goel, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Arun Birbal.

Facts of the Case

The Tenant had contended that the landlady sold other properties prior to filing of the Eviction Petition and there were concealments in the Site Plan filed by the landlady, as there was availability of suitable alternative accommodations with her.

The Counsel raised the issue of the maintainability of the Eviction Petition, contending that since the landlady is a housewife, her bona fide requirement regarding her husband could not have been made out, more so, since her husband, who was older in age than her, could not have been held to be dependent upon her.

It was argued that the younger son of the landlady is already running his own dry fruits business, and since the landlady neither showed her source of income, nor that her husband is actually unemployed, no bona fide requirement was made out. 

On the other hand, Counsel for the landlady submitted that a landlady being a housewife cannot come in the way of her fulfilling her pious duties as a wife, and so, the landlady’s requirement of helping her own husband has rightly not been interfered.

Reasoning By Court

The Court didn't find any merit in the case set up by the tenant and observed, "The aspect of landlord-tenant relationship being uncontested, and in view of the well-reasoned findings rendered by the learned ARC qua the aspect of suitable alternative accommodation as well after due consideration of every other premises alleged by the tenant, there is no need for this Court to advert to the same."

As far as the aspect of bona fide requirement was concerned, the Court ruled that the argument urged by the tenant to the effect that the landlady, being a housewife, could not have any such need or occasion to assist her husband, was wholly untenable.

"The same falls flat since it is well-settled that family members of a landlord, who are closely connected and qua whom the landlord has a social obligation, are also covered by the expression “… …for his own use… …” as contained in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act", the Court observed.

Placing reliance on Supreme Court's decision in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal (2002), the Court ruled that there can be no plausible justification for reading any distinction into the applicable laws simply because the landlord herein is a housewife landlady, more so, since giving such an interpretation would be against the very principles of law and justice, especially as enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

"The landlord can also be a landlady requiring the subject promises for her husband as in the present case. The age of the parties or the dependency of the husband on the landlady or the financial capacity or the status of the parties can in no manner come in the way of maintainability of an eviction petition in such cases", the Court observed.

The Court also emphasized that to put up a sustainable challenge thereto, it was incumbent upon the tenant to lead cogent material to show that the landlady’s husband was employed elsewhere, or working with his younger son, etc.

"Not having brought any such defence on record, mere assertions by the tenant that a husband could never depend upon a housewife, could not have provided any support to his case, and the learned ARC has correctly found the aspect of bona fide requirement in favour of the landlady as well", the Court observed.

The matter was accordingly adjourned to November 19, 2025.

Cause Title: Naveen Kumar v. Babita Jain

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Mala Goel, Advocate Parvinder, Advocate Mahi Pawar

Respondent- Advocate Arun Birbal, Advocate Sonjay Singh

Click here to read/ download Order