The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an eviction order against a long-time tenant, holding that the landlord’s need to use the shop for his own business was genuine and legally valid. The court made it clear that revision jurisdiction under the rent law is limited and cannot be used to re-examine facts already decided by the Rent Controller.
The ruling came in a revision petition filed by Satish Kumar Gupta challenging an eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in favour of landlord Sushil Kumar Loomba.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerns Shop No. 2 on the ground floor of a property in Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. The tenant had been occupying the shop for over 30 years at a monthly rent of ₹702.
Read also:- Supreme Court Defers Unitech Homebuyers' Pleas, Sets Fresh Hearing Amid Crowd of Pending Applications
In 2016, the landlord filed an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming that he required the shop to start his own business. He stated that rental income was his only source of livelihood after selling his earlier oxygen-cylinder supply business.
The tenant sought “leave to defend,” arguing that the eviction plea was not genuine. He alleged that the landlord had other vacant shops in the same building and that the eviction case was filed only to re-let the premises at a higher rent. The ARC rejected these arguments and ordered eviction in May 2024, prompting the tenant to approach the High Court.
Tenant’s Arguments Before the High Court
The tenant contended that the eviction order was passed without a proper trial and ignored crucial material placed on record. He argued that two other shops in the same building were available and suitable for the landlord’s alleged business need.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Quashes 498A Case Against Neighbour, Citing Misuse of Dowry Law
He also questioned the landlord’s claim that his earlier business had been sold, asserting that the business continued in reality. According to the tenant, these issues raised “triable questions” that required a full hearing rather than summary eviction.
Landlord’s Stand
The landlord opposed the revision petition, saying it was an attempt to delay eviction despite clear findings by the Rent Controller. He maintained that he had no other suitable commercial space available and that the other shops were either let out or being used by his wife for a boutique business.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the landlord argued that it is settled law that a landlord is the best judge of his own business requirements.
Read also:- Madras High Court Cancels Wipro’s ‘PREMIO’ Trademark After Finding Years of Non-Use
Court’s Observations
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that there was no dispute about the landlord-tenant relationship. The court carefully reviewed the ARC’s findings and found no illegality or perversity in the eviction order.
“The scope of revision under the rent law is supervisory, not appellate,” the court observed, adding that it cannot replace the Rent Controller’s assessment with its own unless the findings are wholly unreasonable.
On the issue of alternative accommodation, the bench accepted the explanation that the other shops were either in use or legitimately occupied for the family’s business. It rejected the tenant’s claim that mere availability of another shop automatically defeats the landlord’s need.
The court also clarified that even if the landlord had previously run another business, that would not bar him from starting a new one from the disputed premises.
Final Decision
Concluding that no triable issues arose from the tenant’s defence, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. It upheld the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed that the landlord is entitled to enforce it immediately, as the statutory waiting period had already expired.
With this, the long-running tenancy dispute came to an end at the High Court level, reinforcing the limited scope of interference in rent control revision cases.
Case Title:- Satish Kumar Gupta v. Sushil Kumar Loomba
Case Number: RC.REV. 300/2024
