By Kavita Mistry 
A family in Delhi faced a prolonged and distressing struggle while trying to evict their tenants from a property they genuinely needed for personal use. The property, originally purchased by the landlord’s grandfather through a registered sale deed dated January 6, 1947, consisted of two rooms, a kothri, a dalan, an open courtyard, a bathroom, a latrine and two kitchens.
After the purchase, the grandfather rented out the property to a tenant whose son—respondent no.1—later became the original tenant. Over time, however, the tenant’s father unlawfully handed over possession to seven other individuals (respondent nos. 2 to 8), who moved into the premises as unauthorized occupants. The landlord’s family, meanwhile, required the ground-floor property urgently because the landlord’s son’s wife had undergone a caesarean surgery and was medically advised to avoid stairs, while their current residence was in a dilapidated condition.
Delhi HC Quashes ARC Order, Citing Contradictory Claims by Unauthorized Occupants
Trouble escalated when the respondents attempted to dispute the landlord’s ownership, relying on a 1997 receipt in which the landlord’s mother allegedly acknowledged Rs 50,000 as part payment for a supposed sale of the property. The landlord countered this by producing the registered 1947 sale deed, mutation records and identity documents proving family lineage. Further, the alleged 1997 receipt had already been dismissed in earlier court proceedings in 2002 and again in 2012, making the claim legally untenable. Despite this, the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in December 2023 granted the unauthorized occupants leave to defend, treating their claims as a triable issue. The landlord then challenged this ruling before the Delhi High Court.
On October 9, 2025, the Delhi High Court set aside the ARC’s order, ruling decisively in favour of the landlord. The court noted that the original tenant—respondent no.1—never filed a leave-to-defend application, and only unauthorized occupants sought to contest the eviction, contrary to the purpose of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which aims to provide a swift remedy in genuine need cases. The High Court held that the occupants’ contradictory stance—claiming both ownership through the mother’s receipt and simultaneously disputing the 1947 sale deed—was self-defeating. It reaffirmed the principle that a landlord is the best judge of his own bona fide requirement and that alternative accommodation becomes irrelevant once genuine need is proven. The court emphasised the medical evidence supporting the landlord’s case and noted that the occupants could not raise any credible issue against the claim.
High Court Confirms Eviction, Citing Genuine Need and Legal Ownership
Accordingly, the High Court ordered eviction of all occupants, granting a mandatory six-month period before execution, and reinforced that speculative defences cannot override a landlord’s lawful rights and genuine necessity.
Summary:
The Delhi High Court ordered the eviction of unauthorized occupants from a family property after rejecting their contradictory ownership claims. Citing the landlord’s genuine medical need and valid 1947 sale deed, the court overturned the ARC’s decision, ruled the defences baseless, and granted six months before eviction execution.