Published on: November 25, 2023 at 14:20 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Sarla Ahuja V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Landlord cannot be deprived of his property under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on account of availability of alternative residential accommodation is in a different State. The Hon’ble Court can only interfere when such accommodation is available in the same city or town, or at least within reasonable proximity. The said limb of clause (e) of the Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be interpreted as to mean that if the landlord has another house anywhere in the world.
14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide.
When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
