Delhi High Court Allows Landlady to Evict Tenant for Husband’s Dry Fruit Business
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of a landlady, allowing her to evict a tenant to reclaim her property for her husband’s dry fruit business. The court emphasized the landlady's right to support her family, even if she is a housewife.
LandladyTenant EvictionDelhi High CourtDry Fruit BusinessFamily WelfareReal Estate NewsNov 17, 2025
Real Estate News:On October 16, 2025, the Delhi High Court ruled that a landlady, who is also a housewife, can reclaim the house which has been put on rent, for the genuine purpose of supporting her husband’s welfare and improvement, as it’s part of her family responsibilities.
This judgment came in the context of an appeal filed in a tenant eviction case where the landlady argued that her husband, who is currently unemployed and dependent on her, required the property which had been put on rent, to start his dry fruits business. The tenant lost the case and subsequently appealed to the Delhi High Court.
During the tenant eviction case's proceedings, the tenant’s lawyer told the Delhi High Court that the landlady had sold other properties before filing the present eviction petition. The tenant claimed that there were ‘concealments’ in the site plan filed by the landlady as there were other suitable accommodations available to her, indicating that there was no genuine need for this particular property, as the landlady had claimed.
The tenant also argued before the Delhi High Court that since the landlady is a housewife, her claims regarding the husband’s needs were not convincing, especially since her husband is older than her and shouldn’t be considered dependent on her. Additionally, the tenant mentioned that the couple has two sons and the younger son is already running his own dry fruits business. The tenant also pointed out that the landlady failed to provide proof of her income or demonstrate that her husband is really unemployed, which undermined the claim of genuine requirement.
The landlady’s lawyer, supporting the impugned order, told the Delhi High Court that the Tis Hazari Courts had already provided detailed findings about the contentions raised by the tenant. Regarding the landlady being a housewife, her lawyer, Mr Arun Birbal, told the Delhi High Court that her being a housewife shouldn’t hinder her from fulfilling her sacred duties as a wife. Therefore, the landlady’s need to assist her husband has rightly not been interfered with by the Tis Hazari Courts, and should continue to remain untouched.
Further, concerning whether the landlady’s husband is actually unemployed or if their sons are running a business, the landlady’s lawyer said that it was up to the tenant to show any documents or proofs that contradict the landlady’s claims. Since the tenant failed to do so, the eviction order has rightly been issued against the tenant and in favor of the landlady.
Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris, said to ET Wealth Online: “The Court ruled in favor of the landlady, recognizing her genuine and bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for the welfare and rehabilitation of her unemployed husband. It held that a housewife landlady is fully entitled to seek possession of her property to support her dependent spouse, and such a need squarely falls within the meaning of ‘own use’ under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The tenant failed to disprove this claim. This judgment reinforces that landlords and landladies can legitimately seek eviction when the property is genuinely required for themselves or their family members, emphasizing the protection of familial welfare under tenancy law.”
Naman Singh Bagga, Partner, C&S Partners, says: “The judgment is another progressive step towards strengthening landlady’s rights in respect of tenancies covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court affirmed that the landlady concerned is the best judge of her needs, and neither tenants nor courts should interfere. It clarified that ‘for his own use’ includes close family and those qua whom the landlady has social obligations. Defenses based on age, gender, or marital dependency were rejected. The Court emphasized that landlords need only show their requirement is genuine and sincere and not whimsical or arbitrary.”
Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court in this judgment (RC.REV. 168/2023) dated October 16, 2025, said that prima facie, the court does not find any merit in the case set up by the tenant. The aspect of landlord-tenant relationship being uncontested, and in view of the well-reasoned findings rendered by the learned ARC (Tis Hazari) regarding the aspect of suitable alternative accommodation as well after due consideration of every other premises alleged by the tenant, there is no need for the Court to advert to the same.
The Delhi High Court said that as far as the aspect of bona fide requirement is concerned, they find the argument urged by the tenant to the effect that the landlady, being a housewife, could not have any such need or occasion to assist her husband, to be wholly untenable. The same falls flat since it is well-settled that family members of a landlord, who are closely connected and qua whom the landlord has a social obligation, are also covered by the expression “… …for his own use… …” as contained in Section 14(1)(e).
The Delhi High Court said that there can be no plausible justification for reading any distinction into the applicable laws simply because the landlord herein is a housewife landlady, more so, since giving such an interpretation would be against the very principles of law and justice, especially as enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The landlord can also be a landlady requiring the subject premises for her husband as in the present case. The age of the parties or the dependency of the husband on the landlady or the financial capacity or the status of the parties can in no manner come in the way of maintainability of an eviction petition in such cases.
The Delhi High Court said that in the present case, it is not denied by the tenant that her husband was elder in age to her and also was dependent upon her. Moreover, the landlady did not deny that her sons were gainfully employed or that the landlady disclosed her source of income or that her husband is actually unemployed were not factors to conclude that there was no bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlady.
The Delhi High Court said that once it was the case of the landlady that she required the subject premises for the welfare and betterment of her own husband in the course of fulfillment of her familial duties, neither the tenant, nor even the Court, could have any say in the same. As held in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta 1999 (6) SCC 222, the landlady had to only show that the requirement urged by her was honest, genuine, sincere, and the like, and not a product of her whims and fancies, which was more than fulfilled in the present case before the learned ARC.
To put up a sustainable challenge thereto, it was incumbent upon the tenant to lead cogent material to show that the landlady’s husband was employed elsewhere, or working with his younger son, etc. Not having brought any such defense on record, mere assertions by the tenant that a husband could never depend upon a housewife, could not have provided any support to his case, and the learned ARC (Tis Hazari) has correctly found the aspect of bona fide requirement in favor of the landlady as well.
The Delhi High Court observed that the tenant’s lawyer, upon instructions from the brother of the tenant, told that the tenant is willing to vacate the subject premises and hand over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the landlady on or before May 30, 2026.
This judgment came in the context of an appeal filed in a tenant eviction case where the landlady argued that her husband, who is currently unemployed and dependent on her, required the property which had been put on rent, to start his dry fruits business. The tenant lost the case and subsequently appealed to the Delhi High Court.
During the tenant eviction case's proceedings, the tenant’s lawyer told the Delhi High Court that the landlady had sold other properties before filing the present eviction petition. The tenant claimed that there were ‘concealments’ in the site plan filed by the landlady as there were other suitable accommodations available to her, indicating that there was no genuine need for this particular property, as the landlady had claimed.
The tenant also argued before the Delhi High Court that since the landlady is a housewife, her claims regarding the husband’s needs were not convincing, especially since her husband is older than her and shouldn’t be considered dependent on her. Additionally, the tenant mentioned that the couple has two sons and the younger son is already running his own dry fruits business. The tenant also pointed out that the landlady failed to provide proof of her income or demonstrate that her husband is really unemployed, which undermined the claim of genuine requirement.
The landlady’s lawyer, supporting the impugned order, told the Delhi High Court that the Tis Hazari Courts had already provided detailed findings about the contentions raised by the tenant. Regarding the landlady being a housewife, her lawyer, Mr Arun Birbal, told the Delhi High Court that her being a housewife shouldn’t hinder her from fulfilling her sacred duties as a wife. Therefore, the landlady’s need to assist her husband has rightly not been interfered with by the Tis Hazari Courts, and should continue to remain untouched.
Further, concerning whether the landlady’s husband is actually unemployed or if their sons are running a business, the landlady’s lawyer said that it was up to the tenant to show any documents or proofs that contradict the landlady’s claims. Since the tenant failed to do so, the eviction order has rightly been issued against the tenant and in favor of the landlady.
Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris, said to ET Wealth Online: “The Court ruled in favor of the landlady, recognizing her genuine and bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for the welfare and rehabilitation of her unemployed husband. It held that a housewife landlady is fully entitled to seek possession of her property to support her dependent spouse, and such a need squarely falls within the meaning of ‘own use’ under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The tenant failed to disprove this claim. This judgment reinforces that landlords and landladies can legitimately seek eviction when the property is genuinely required for themselves or their family members, emphasizing the protection of familial welfare under tenancy law.”
Naman Singh Bagga, Partner, C&S Partners, says: “The judgment is another progressive step towards strengthening landlady’s rights in respect of tenancies covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court affirmed that the landlady concerned is the best judge of her needs, and neither tenants nor courts should interfere. It clarified that ‘for his own use’ includes close family and those qua whom the landlady has social obligations. Defenses based on age, gender, or marital dependency were rejected. The Court emphasized that landlords need only show their requirement is genuine and sincere and not whimsical or arbitrary.”
Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court in this judgment (RC.REV. 168/2023) dated October 16, 2025, said that prima facie, the court does not find any merit in the case set up by the tenant. The aspect of landlord-tenant relationship being uncontested, and in view of the well-reasoned findings rendered by the learned ARC (Tis Hazari) regarding the aspect of suitable alternative accommodation as well after due consideration of every other premises alleged by the tenant, there is no need for the Court to advert to the same.
The Delhi High Court said that as far as the aspect of bona fide requirement is concerned, they find the argument urged by the tenant to the effect that the landlady, being a housewife, could not have any such need or occasion to assist her husband, to be wholly untenable. The same falls flat since it is well-settled that family members of a landlord, who are closely connected and qua whom the landlord has a social obligation, are also covered by the expression “… …for his own use… …” as contained in Section 14(1)(e).
The Delhi High Court said that there can be no plausible justification for reading any distinction into the applicable laws simply because the landlord herein is a housewife landlady, more so, since giving such an interpretation would be against the very principles of law and justice, especially as enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The landlord can also be a landlady requiring the subject premises for her husband as in the present case. The age of the parties or the dependency of the husband on the landlady or the financial capacity or the status of the parties can in no manner come in the way of maintainability of an eviction petition in such cases.
The Delhi High Court said that in the present case, it is not denied by the tenant that her husband was elder in age to her and also was dependent upon her. Moreover, the landlady did not deny that her sons were gainfully employed or that the landlady disclosed her source of income or that her husband is actually unemployed were not factors to conclude that there was no bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlady.
The Delhi High Court said that once it was the case of the landlady that she required the subject premises for the welfare and betterment of her own husband in the course of fulfillment of her familial duties, neither the tenant, nor even the Court, could have any say in the same. As held in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta 1999 (6) SCC 222, the landlady had to only show that the requirement urged by her was honest, genuine, sincere, and the like, and not a product of her whims and fancies, which was more than fulfilled in the present case before the learned ARC.
To put up a sustainable challenge thereto, it was incumbent upon the tenant to lead cogent material to show that the landlady’s husband was employed elsewhere, or working with his younger son, etc. Not having brought any such defense on record, mere assertions by the tenant that a husband could never depend upon a housewife, could not have provided any support to his case, and the learned ARC (Tis Hazari) has correctly found the aspect of bona fide requirement in favor of the landlady as well.
The Delhi High Court observed that the tenant’s lawyer, upon instructions from the brother of the tenant, told that the tenant is willing to vacate the subject premises and hand over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the landlady on or before May 30, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the main reason for the landlady to evict the tenant?
The main reason for the landlady to evict the tenant was to reclaim the property for her husband to start a dry fruit business, as he was unemployed and dependent on her.
What did the tenant argue in court?
The tenant argued that the landlady had other suitable accommodations and that her claims about her husband's dependency and unemployment were not genuine.
How did the court rule in favor of the landlady?
The court ruled in favor of the landlady by recognizing her genuine need to support her husband's welfare and improvement, which falls under the 'own use' provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
What is the significance of the landlady being a housewife in this case?
The court emphasized that being a housewife does not hinder the landlady from fulfilling her duties to support her family, and her need to assist her husband is valid.
What is the deadline for the tenant to vacate the property?
The tenant agreed to vacate the property and hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the landlady by May 30, 2026.
Related News Articles
real estate news
₹8.3 Lakh Crore in Sales, 0% Volume Growth: India’s Housing Market on Thin Ice
India’s housing market is experiencing a boom in sales value, driven by luxury segments, but faces significant challenges with flat unit sales volumes and a construction slowdown. The market's stability is at risk, warns a recent report.
November 13, 2025
Read Article
Real Estate
Goa Emerges as a Leading Destination for Serviced Residences in India
Colliers' latest report highlights the growing investment potential in Goa, driven by the rising demand for serviced residences and a shift in traveler preferences.
September 4, 2025
Read Article
Real Estate
From Delhi to Gurgaon: Tushar Garg’s Quest for a Better Quality of Life
Discover how Tushar Garg, a young investor, made the bold move from Delhi to Gurgaon to enjoy a better quality of life and the benefits of co-living.
June 29, 2025
Read Article