Landlord Need Not Prove Absolute Ownership; Proof of ‘Better Title’ Than Tenant Suffices For Eviction: Delhi High Court

“The vesting of absolute ownership is not a pre-requisite for adjudication of an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, and the landlady’s ownership is good against the world except the true owner”— In a seminal ruling, the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Saurabh Banerjee, has set aside an order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), holding that a tenant cannot defeat an eviction petition by challenging the landlord’s absolute title when the landlord holds a registered sale deed and rent receipts.

The Controversy: Title Dispute in Eviction Proceedings

The Court was hearing a revision petition filed by a landlady challenging the dismissal of her eviction petition by the ARC. The landlady, who purchased the property via a Sale Deed dated 24.06.2003, sought eviction of the tenant from the premises in Kinari Bazar, Delhi, citing a bona fide requirement for herself and her growing family.

The tenant contested the petition primarily on the ground of ownership. He argued that the landlady was not the true owner, alleging that the property belonged to a Trust created by a Will dated 1945. The tenant claimed the sale deed was a "sham" and that he had been inducted by the Trust. The ARC accepted this defense, dismissing the petition after conducting a detailed inquiry into the title, concluding that the landlady failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship.

“The tenant could not assume the role of a contender to the title of the landlady.”

Judicial Reasoning: Rent Controller is Not a Civil Court

Justice Banerjee came down heavily on the approach adopted by the ARC, observing that the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction by venturing into a complex adjudication of title, which is impermissible under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The High Court reiterated that the standard of proof for ownership in eviction proceedings is not as stringent as in a title suit under the Transfer of Property Act.

The Court noted that the landlady had produced a registered Sale Deed and rent receipts. In contrast, the tenant offered only "bald assertions" regarding the Trust without substantive evidence. The Bench held that for Section 14(1)(e), the landlord only needs to demonstrate that they are "something more than a tenant" and hold a title better than the respondent.

“There was no reason for the learned ARC to go into the issue of ownership of the landlady whence, there were rent receipts to establish a better title of the landlady than the tenant.”

Bona Fide Requirement: Landlord is the Best Judge

Addressing the issue of bona fide requirement, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, reaffirming that the landlord is the sole and best judge of their own requirements. The Court held that neither the tenant nor the Court can dictate terms regarding the suitability or adequacy of the accommodation required by the landlord.

The Court observed that the landlady’s need for additional space for her children, guests, and a pooja room was genuine. The tenant’s failure to provide credible evidence of alternative suitable accommodation available to the landlady rendered his defense meritless.

“It is not for the tenant... nor for this Court, to dictate the terms and go into the aspect of suitability and/ or convenience... much less adequacy thereof.”

The High Court ruled that the ARC’s judgment suffered from manifest error by ignoring settled precedents such as Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha. Consequently, the Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The revision petition was allowed, the ARC’s judgment was set aside, and an eviction order was passed. The tenant has been granted six months to vacate the premises in accordance with Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.

Date of Decision: 23/12/2025