In Naresh Kumar v. Sunny Kashyap & Anr., RC.REV. 330/2026 (decided 8 September 2026), Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar of the Delhi High Court dismissed a tenant's revision against an eviction order passed on the ground of bona fide requirement under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The landlords — both practising advocates — sought the premises to set up a law office. The tenant attacked the relationship itself, the genuineness of the need, and pointed to alternative properties. The Court rejected each limb: the tenant's own admissions established the relationship, the landlords' professional requirement was genuine, and none of the suggested alternatives was actually available or suitable.
The eviction petition and the defence
The respondent-landlords, both practising advocates, sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that they required the premises bona fide to establish a law office. The tenant resisted on three fronts familiar to every rent-control practitioner: first, that no landlord–tenant relationship existed between the parties; second, that the requirement was not genuine — underscored, he argued, by the fact that the pleaded use had been amended from a confectionery shop to a law office; and third, that the landlords had other properties answering their need.
How the Court dealt with each objection
The alternative accommodation inquiry, done properly
The judgment is a useful illustration of how the "other reasonably suitable accommodation" limb of Section 14(1)(e) actually works. The inquiry is concrete, not arithmetical. It is no answer to list properties connected with the landlord's family; the question is whether the landlord himself can, in practical terms, use them for the projected need.
| Suggested alternative | Why it failed |
|---|---|
| Chamber at the courts | Shared professional facility; not independently owned or adequate for a full office |
| Residential property | In use as a residence and located far from the primary place of practice |
| Family-held shops | Allotted to other members under a family settlement; not available to the landlords |
Takeaways for Delhi rent-control practice
For landlords, the case rewards precision in pleading: identify the need, the persons for whose benefit it exists, and deal candidly with every property the tenant may throw back, explaining availability and suitability. An honest amendment is survivable; an evasive affidavit of assets is not.
For tenants, the decision is a reminder that the three classic defences must be built on evidence, not assertion. Denying the relationship in the face of one's own admissions weakens the whole defence, and a list of family properties without proof of the landlord's actual access rarely moves the needle. The revisional court will not re-weigh evidence under Section 25B(8); by that stage the realistic targets are errors of law and perversity, nothing broader.
Eviction on bona fide requirement carries a statutory safeguard for tenants: under Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, the landlord ordinarily cannot obtain possession before six months from the date of the order, giving the occupant time to relocate.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must a landlord show for eviction on bona fide requirement?
Under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the landlord must establish ownership in the rent-law sense, a genuine requirement of the premises for himself or dependent family members, and the absence of other reasonably suitable accommodation. The requirement must be real, not a pretext to evict.
Can a landlord's stated use change during the case?
An amendment in the description of the need — here, from a shop to a law office — does not by itself make the requirement mala fide. Courts look at whether the requirement as finally projected is genuine, and recognise that a landlord's circumstances can evolve during long litigation.
What counts as suitable alternative accommodation?
Property that is actually available to the landlord, and reasonably suitable for the projected need. A shared professional facility, premises held by other family members under a family arrangement, or a residence far from the place of work will not ordinarily defeat the claim.
How narrow is the High Court's power in a rent control revision?
The revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B(8) is supervisory: the High Court checks whether the Rent Controller's order is according to law, not whether another view was possible on the evidence. Concurrent factual assessments of genuineness are rarely disturbed.