-
by Admin
16 December 2025 9:37 AM
"Section 14(6) Refers to 'A Landlord', Not 'All Landlords' — Co-owners Can File Eviction Petition If One Has Satisfied Five-Year Ownership Condition" - In a significant ruling that clarifies a long-standing ambiguity in rent control litigation, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Vijay Kumar v. Madhu Rani & Others, held that the five-year statutory bar under Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is to be computed from the date the first co-owner acquires title, not from the subsequent acquisitions by other co-owners. The judgment came in a dispute concerning eviction proceedings initiated by joint landlords on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while dismissing the tenant’s revision petition challenging the eviction, made it unequivocally clear that Section 14(6) refers to "a landlord" and cannot be interpreted to impose a blanket five-year restriction on all co-owners, particularly when one of them has satisfied the statutory ownership condition.
“The DRC Act Does Not Preclude Joint Owners From Filing an Eviction Petition If One of Them Has Satisfied the Condition Under Section 14(6)”
The landlords — Madhu Rani and her daughter — had jointly filed an eviction petition for recovery of possession of a shop at Shankar Market, Shahdara, citing personal need to open a boutique business. The shop had been purchased through two separate sale deeds — the mother acquired her share in 1996, and the daughter acquired hers in 2007. The eviction petition was filed in 2012.
The tenant argued that since the second co-owner had acquired her share less than five years before the eviction petition, the bar under Section 14(6) was triggered, making the petition non-maintainable.
Rejecting the tenant’s interpretation, the Court observed:
“The language of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act is very clear. Section 14(6)… dealt with 'a landlord' and is silent when there are more than one landlord who have acquired the subject property from time to time by 'transfer'.”
Justice Banerjee clarified:
“In such a scenario where there were/are more than one landlord involved in an eviction petition like the present one, the time period of five years as per Section 14(6)… is to be calculated from the earliest/first date of purchase of a part of the subject premises, and not the subsequent date of purchase of any/another part of the very same subject premises.” [Para 17]
Accordingly, the Court found no fault in the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 18.11.2019, noting that landlord no.1’s ownership dated back to 1996, which was well beyond the five-year period under Section 14(6).
“Tenant Cannot Raise New Pleas at the Revisional Stage Which Were Never Urged Before the Rent Controller”
Equally significant was the Court’s finding that the tenant had not raised the bar under Section 14(6) at any point before the Rent Controller, nor had he filed a reply or led evidence in the proceedings. The issue was argued for the first time in the High Court, which the Court termed impermissible.
“Since neither any reply was filed nor any evidence was led by the tenant before the learned ARC, there was no plea qua applicability of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act before the learned ARC. The tenant is thus estopped from making out a fresh/new case…” [Para 19]
Justice Banerjee further held that Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act confers a very limited revisional jurisdiction, meant only to address errors apparent on the face of the record or blatant illegality. It cannot be used to introduce new factual or legal defences that were never raised before the trial forum.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court reiterated:
“It is not permissible for the High Court… to come to a different fact finding unless the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller on the facts is so unreasonable that no Rent Controller should have reached such a finding…” [Para 22]
“Bona Fide Need Proved, No Alternative Accommodation, Tenant’s Conduct Unjustified”
On merits, the Court agreed with the ARC’s finding that the landlords had demonstrated a bona fide need to use the shop for opening a boutique and that no suitable alternative accommodation was available to them. The tenant had neither denied these facts nor contested them with evidence, making his challenge even weaker.
“There was/ is a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlords… and the same was also not challenged by the tenant…” [Para 15]
The Court emphasized that the failure to participate in proceedings meaningfully, and to raise genuine triable issues, justified the eviction under the DRC Act.
“Revision Petition Dismissed, Tenant Directed to Hand Over Possession Forthwith”
The High Court, affirming the eviction order dated 18.11.2019, concluded that:
“The facts placed by the tenant herein do not disclose any such circumstance(s) calling for any interference by this Court.” [Para 24]
Since the six-month statutory protection under Section 14(7) had already lapsed, the Court directed the tenant to hand over peaceful possession of the shop premises forthwith to the landlords.
Delhi High Court Clarifies Section 14(6) of DRC Act and Reinforces Judicial Discipline in Rent Control Litigation
This judgment not only clarifies the legal position on how Section 14(6) is to be applied in cases of joint ownership, but also reaffirms the limited scope of revision under Section 25B(8). The Court’s emphasis that co-owners are not barred from seeking eviction if even one of them satisfies the statutory requirement is a welcome clarification in Delhi’s complex rent control landscape.
By holding that a tenant cannot raise new defences at the revisional stage and by upholding eviction grounded in bona fide need, the ruling strikes a balance between tenant protection and landlord rights, as originally envisioned under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Date of Decision: 08 October 2025
