Landlord wanted tenant out for law office; Delhi HC rejects tenant's objections
Two landlords, who were practising advocates, said they needed the rented premises to set up a law office. The tenant argued that the landlords had changed their stated purpose for seeking possession and already had other properties that could be used for their professional work. The tenant opposed the eviction and applied for leave to defend.
In September 2026, the Delhi High Court ruled against a tenant who refused to vacate his property so two landlords, who were also practicing advocates, could establish a law office. The court dismissed the tenant's objections, which centered around the landlord-tenant relationship, the validity of the landlords' stated purpose for the premises, and the existence of alternative accommodations for the law office.
The tenant argued that the landlords had initially intended to use the property for a confectionery shop, but later changed their stated purpose to a law office. He also claimed that the landlords already possessed other properties suitable for their professional work. However, the court found no evidence to support these claims, as the landlords had already admitted in their own pleadings that the property had belonged to the tenants' ancestors for generations.
The court noted that a landlord in proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act need only demonstrate a better title than the tenant, and in this case, the landlords' claim held up.
Written by urgent.news from Times of India's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
