Summary: The Delhi High Court recently made a decision on December 23, 2025, in a case involving Parshottam Lal, a landlord, and New Light Trading Company, the tenant. The case was about an eviction request and the court's decision to remove the tenants from a shop in Khari Baoli, Delhi.
Parshottam Lal, the landlord, asked the court to remove New Light Trading Company and other tenants from Shop No.520 at Khari Baoli. He wanted the shop for his unemployed son to start a business. Initially, the request included multiple parts of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, but was later focused on a section for genuine need.
The tenants argued there was no landlord-tenant relationship and claimed the son didn't need the shop since he had an income. They also said Parshottam Lal had other properties available. They questioned Parshottam Lal's ownership, saying the sale document was not valid due to missing paperwork and issues among heirs.
Parshottam Lal claimed full ownership through a registered sale document and a will. He argued that the tenants had no right to question his ownership and insisted the shop was necessary for his son's business.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee found that the Rent Controller had gone too far by questioning Parshottam Lal's ownership. The court ruled that Parshottam Lal only needed to show he had a better claim than the tenant, not full ownership. The court found Parshottam Lal's need for the shop was real and overturned the previous decision dismissing the eviction request.
The court looked into other properties owned by Parshottam Lal and found not enough evidence to prove they were good alternatives. The tenants couldn't show these properties were as good as the shop for business needs.
The Delhi High Court ordered the tenants to leave, giving them six months to do so. The decision emphasized Parshottam Lal's right to choose the right place for his needs.
This case highlights the complexities of landlord-tenant disputes and the importance of clear ownership and genuine need in eviction cases.
