Introduction:

In the case Satya Pal Pathak Through GPA Vijay Kumar Kaushik (RC.REV. 156/2024 & CM Appl. 33074/2024), the Delhi High Court quashed a Trial Court order granting leave to defend to a tenant in an eviction petition. The landlord, an 80-year-old man suffering from multiple medical conditions, sought eviction of the tenant, claiming the premises were required for bona fide use. The tenant had contended that the landlord had alternative accommodations and failed to provide specific details about his round-the-clock medical requirements, which the Trial Court deemed as triable issues. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, however, ruled in favor of the landlord, emphasizing the sanctity of medical evidence and the landlord’s right to determine how to use his property.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The landlord argued that the premises were needed for his bona fide use due to his advanced age and deteriorating health conditions, including paralysis, Parkinson’s disease, fibrosis of the lungs, and hypertension. He also emphasized that his wife, aged 76, was critically ill and required round-the-clock care, making it essential for medical attendants to stay on the premises. Furthermore, the landlord submitted site plans showing the lack of alternative accommodations for him and his family. He argued that he was entitled to decide how to use his property, and the courts could not dictate terms regarding his requirements.

The tenant, in contrast, argued that the landlord had alternative accommodations available, making the eviction petition unnecessary. The tenant further pointed out that the landlord had not provided detailed information regarding the medical attendants required for his care, arguing that this omission raised a triable issue. The tenant asserted that these aspects warranted leave to defend, as the petitioner had failed to establish a clear and urgent need for the premises.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju ruled in favor of the landlord, setting aside the Trial Court’s order granting leave to defend to the tenant. The High Court observed that the medical records and site plans submitted by the landlord clearly demonstrated his bona fide requirement for the premises. The Court emphasized that the landlord and his wife were suffering from severe medical conditions requiring constant care, and the subject premises were critical for their well-being. It was noted that the medical facilities required for their treatment were located near the premises, making it impractical to relocate them elsewhere.

The Court further remarked that the landlord’s bona fides could not be doubted, given the extensive medical evidence and detailed site plans showing the unavailability of alternative accommodations. Justice Ganju held that the tenant’s contention regarding the lack of details about medical attendants did not amount to a triable issue, as the need for constant care was evident from the medical records. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022) and Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan (1996), reiterating that tenants cannot dictate how landlords use their property and that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements.

The High Court highlighted that the scope of revisionary jurisdiction is limited to examining whether the Rent Controller’s order is in accordance with the law. It stated that the Trial Court had erred in treating the tenant’s contentions as triable issues despite the clear evidence presented by the landlord. The Court granted the tenant six months to vacate the premises, ensuring a reasonable time for compliance.