NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that a housewife landlady can legitimately seek eviction of a tenant if the premises are required for the welfare or occupation of her husband and family, observing that such a need qualifies as a “bona fide requirement” under law.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the observation while dismissing a tenant’s plea challenging an eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), which had allowed the landlady’s petition seeking possession of a shop for her unemployed husband to start a dry fruits business. The Court found no merit in the tenant’s challenge and upheld the ARC’s findings.
“The argument urged by the tenant that the landlady, being a housewife, could not have any such need or occasion to assist her husband is wholly untenable,” Justice Banerjee said. “It is well-settled that family members of a landlord, who are closely connected and for whom the landlord has a social obligation, are covered under the expression ‘for his own use’ as contained in Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.”
The Court clarified that the law draws no distinction based on gender or occupation. “There can be no plausible justification for interpreting the applicable laws differently simply because the landlord is a housewife landlady. Such an interpretation would be contrary to the principles of equality and justice enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India,” the judge added.
It further held that factors such as the age of the husband, his dependency on the landlady, or the financial status of the parties cannot undermine the maintainability of an eviction petition based on genuine need. The Court observed that the tenant had not denied that the husband was elderly and dependent on the landlady.
Rejecting the tenant’s claim that a husband could not be dependent on a housewife, Justice Banerjee said that such assertions carried no legal weight without evidence.
The tenant agreed to vacate the premises by May 30, 2026, clearing all utility and statutory dues, while continuing to pay use and occupation charges. The matter is listed for further hearing on November 19.
