An Eviction Petition Laced with Falsehoods Cannot Qualify as Bonafide: Delhi High Court Rebukes Landlady for Concealment and Fabrication of Need

“Presumption of Bonafide Need Cannot Override Proof” - In a significant ruling delivered on October 10, 2025, the Delhi High Court reversed an eviction order passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, holding that the Addl. Rent Controller had erred in presuming the bonafide requirement of the landlady despite documentary and testimonial evidence exposing serious contradictions in her case.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, invoking the Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Act, found the eviction petition to be riddled with misrepresentations and concealments, including an alleged “artificial scarcity” created by the landlady through false claims about alternative premises. The Court observed that the ARC’s approach was “wholly perverse and impermissible”, and that a presumption in favour of the landlady could not be sustained “in the face of glaring omissions and falsehoods.”

“Burden to Prove Bonafide Requirement Lies on the Landlord, Not the Tenant”: Misapplication of Law Nullifies ARC’s Eviction Order

The core of the legal controversy revolved around the landlady’s claim that she needed possession of shop no. 2902, Kinari Bazar, for opening a boutique. In her petition, she had asserted that the adjacent property (shop no. 2903) had been a staircase that was converted into a shop for her son’s exclusive business use.

However, the tenant successfully produced evidence suggesting otherwise, establishing that the adjacent premises had been let out to one Vijay Kumar for ₹20,000 per month, approximately nine months prior to the filing of the eviction petition. The documents included rent receipts dated 01.10.2017 and a tax invoice dated 29.06.2018, both demonstrating the premises were commercially let and operated from — contrary to the landlady's claims.

Despite these facts, the ARC presumed the landlady’s need to be genuine and proceeded to grant eviction, without adjudicating the truth of the concealment. The High Court criticized this omission, holding:

“The learned ARC has rendered his findings without any appreciation of the defense raised by the tenant and the evidence adduced by him… the eviction petition itself was never tested against the allegations of artificial scarcity and falsehood, which went to the root of the bonafide plea.”

The Court emphasized that under Section 14(1)(e), the law places the burden entirely on the landlord to demonstrate that the need is “natural, real, sincere and devoid of falsehood”, and not a strategic ploy to extract higher rent or unjustly displace a tenant.

“False Pleas Cannot Sustain a Decree for Eviction”: Revisional Court Denounces the Use of Contradictory Stances to Evict Tenants

Justice Banerjee underscored the foundational requirement that bona fide must be proven — not presumed — especially when inconsistencies in pleadings are apparent. He noted that:

“In the facts and circumstances of the present case… the glaring omission of adjudication thereon, and rendering of findings on bonafide requirement simply on a presumption in favour of the landlady without consideration of the material on record… was wholly perverse.”

The judgment observed that the landlady, in her cross-examination, first denied ever letting out shop no. 2903, then later admitted her signature on rent receipts issued to Sh. Vijay Kumar. Moreover, though she promised to produce her rent records and bill books, she failed to do so despite being served with notice under Order XXII Rule 8 of the CPC.

The Court held that such conduct could not be brushed aside as a “single instance” of letting, and it completely negated the honesty of the landlady’s need. The High Court also rejected the ARC’s observation that because she hadn’t let out “so many properties”, her requirement must be genuine:

“The learned ARC has erred in going beyond the contentions raised by the parties… the moot crux for adjudication before him was the truthfulness of the eviction petition and the bona fide of the landlady at the time of filing of the eviction petition.”

“Bonafide Requirement Must Be Honest and Without Deceit”: High Court Reaffirms Supreme Court Principles

The Court relied on landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, including:

• Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222

• Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, (1974) 2 SCC 365

• Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde, (1999) 4 SCC 1

Quoting from Dattatraya Laxman Kamble, the High Court reiterated:

“The requirement urged by the landlord must be a real, genuine, sincere and honest one, and must not rest on concealment, deceit or fraud. If the Court feels any doubt, it is the landlord’s duty to dispel the same.”

The Court further cited the five-judge Bench decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, to clarify that while revisional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence like appellate courts, they must intervene when a judgment is “arbitrary, perverse, or suffers from illegality.”

In this case, the High Court found that the ARC’s judgment had skirted the central issue — the deliberate suppression of material facts — and allowed an eviction that may have been based on fabricated need.

“A Tenant Cannot Be Evicted on Presumptions When Falsehoods Are Proven”: Delhi High Court Orders Remand for Fresh Adjudication

Ultimately, the Court found that the ARC had not only misapplied the burden of proof but had also failed to test the eviction petition against the tenant’s allegations of mala fide. In the words of the Court:

“Presuming bonafide requirement without appreciating the tenant’s documentary evidence and cross-examination exposing contradictions in landlady’s case… renders the eviction order unsustainable in law.”

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the eviction order dated 07.05.2024, remanding the matter back to the learned ARC for fresh adjudication after considering the entire evidence and pleadings on record, with a direction to complete proceedings within six months.

Date of Decision: October 10, 2025