Landlord Can File Successive Eviction Petitions Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court
The High Court held that the pendency of an earlier eviction petition does not bar the landlord from filing a fresh petition on a different ground under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order, holding that the pendency of a prior eviction petition between the same parties does not prevent the filing of another petition under a different ground under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act).
The High Court was hearing a revision petition filed by a tenant challenging the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller for a commercial premises. The eviction was sought for bona fide requirement of the landlord’s dependent family member to commence business, and the tenant contended that an earlier eviction proceeding barred the current one.
A Bench comprising Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while adjudicating the matter, observed that “A landlord is free to file for eviction on any of the grounds available to him under Section 14 of the DRC Act, at the same time or at different point(s) of time. Pendency of another (earlier) eviction petition inter se the parties qua the same subject premises does not disqualify the landlord from filing another one…”
Advocate Rajat Aneja represented the petitioner, while Advocate Varun Tyagi appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Background
The landlord had approached the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the tenant from a commercial shop under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act, citing bona fide requirement for his dependent family member to start a new business. He pleaded that no other suitable commercial accommodation was available.
In response, the tenant filed an application for leave to defend, raising multiple objections, including denial of landlord-tenant relationship, alleged availability of other properties with the landlord, pendency of previous litigation, and absence of bona fide requirement.
The Rent Controller rejected the tenant’s application, holding that no triable issue was raised, and ordered eviction after expiry of the statutory six-month period.
Aggrieved, the tenant filed a revision petition before the High Court.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court, upon hearing the matter, recorded that the tenant himself had admitted paying rent to the landlord, thereby affirming the landlord-tenant relationship. The Court also noted that the tenant had failed to substantiate allegations regarding the existence of suitable alternate accommodation.
On the argument that a previously filed eviction petition barred the present proceedings, the Court rejected the contention in clear terms, observing that a landlord is free to file for eviction on any of the grounds available to him under Section 14 of the DRC Act, at the same time or at different points in time. Pendency of another (earlier) Eviction Petition inter se the parties qua the same subject premises, the Court held, does not disqualify the landlord from filing another one at the same time or subsequently.
The Bench further relied on several established Supreme Court precedents, noting that the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Act is extremely narrow, and interference is permissible only where there is gross illegality, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the record.
The Court also held that the availability of another property cannot automatically defeat the bona fide requirement. Suitability of the premises, the Court explained, depends on several factors, including location, feasibility, intended business use and size, stating that “it is not for the tenant to dictate how the landlord should utilise his premises.”
Furthermore, the Court noted that the tenant attempted to introduce new documents and photographs belatedly, without foundation, relevance, or authenticity, and rejected those filings.
Conclusion
Holding that the tenant failed to raise any triable issue, the High Court affirmed the eviction order.
The revision petition was dismissed, and the tenant was directed to hand over peaceful possession of the shop to the landlord within four weeks, as the statutory period granted by the Rent Controller had expired long ago.
The Court also directed that all occupation charges and arrears be cleared before handing over possession.
Cause Title: Harbans Singh v. Anand Tyagi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9375)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate Rajat Aneja
Respondent: Advocates Varun Tyagi, Sunil Chauhan, Shagun Gupta and Ishan Srivastava
