The Delhi High Court has ruled that a landlord need not spell out the exact nature of business they plan to start while seeking eviction of a tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act. Justice Saurabh Banerjee delivered the verdict on October 8, 2025, directing the tenant to vacate Shop No. 2, F-171/4, Laxmi Nagar within six months.
The case—H.S. Banka vs. Mohan Lal (RC.REV. 49/2018)—has been dragging through courts since 2011, and the judgment finally settles a long-standing question on what constitutes a “bona fide requirement” for landlords under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Background
The landlord, H.S. Banka, a senior citizen, had approached the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in 2011, seeking eviction of tenant Mohan Lal from the shop on grounds that he required the space to start his own business. Banka stated that he had no other source of income and that the property was rightfully his, purchased from the previous owner, Smt. Shakuntala Devi.
The tenant, however, challenged the petition, arguing that Banka was merely an attorney of the former owner and that his alleged need was not genuine. The ARC initially granted the tenant permission to defend the case, questioning the vagueness of Banka’s business plans.
Years later, in November 2017, the ARC dismissed Banka’s petition, holding that since he had failed to clarify what kind of business he intended to run, his need could not be treated as bona fide.
Court’s Observations
Justice Banerjee found fault with the ARC’s reasoning, noting that the law does not require landlords to reveal their specific business ideas before seeking eviction. The Court emphasized that “the Delhi Rent Control Act is silent about any requirement of the landlord giving details about the proposed new business.”
The bench further observed, “It is not necessary for a landlord to plead and prove the specific business he wants to set up in the premises… what matters is that the need is genuine and conceived in good faith.”
Citing earlier rulings including Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Prativa Devi vs. T.V. Krishnan, the Court reiterated that a landlord is the best judge of his own needs. “It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises,” Justice Banerjee noted.
The Court also referred to its previous decision in H.S. Banka vs. Hari Krishna Sharma (RC.REV. 43/2018), involving an adjacent shop, where similar arguments were raised and rejected.
Arguments and Counterarguments
During the hearing, counsel for the landlord, Mr. Ajaya Bhardwaj, argued that his client had fulfilled all legal requirements and that the ARC had committed a serious error by insisting on details of a non-existent business. He stressed that “a person cannot be expected to start a business before obtaining possession of the premises.”
On the other side, counsel for the tenant, Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, contended that the landlord’s testimony itself—where he stated, “I will decide about the nature of business after the premises is vacated”—proved the absence of any genuine requirement.
However, the Court disagreed, reasoning that flexibility in business planning is natural, especially given the “fast-changing economic conditions.” Justice Banerjee remarked that binding landlords to a fixed business plan could unjustly expose them to future legal challenges.
The Delhi High Court found that the ARC had “erred in following a procedure against the very tenets of the DRC Act.” It observed that the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship was undisputed, and the tenant had failed to produce evidence of any alternate property owned by the landlord that could be used for business.
Therefore, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.11.2017 is set aside. Accordingly, the tenant is directed to vacate Shop No. 2 property No. F-171/4, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, as per the Site Plan. However, the tenant shall be entitled for the benefit of six months period from today extendable to him under Section 14(7) of the DRC Act. No
order as to costs.
Case Title: H.S. Banka vs. Mohan Lal
Case Number: RC.REV. 49/2018