Eviction pleadings and parting with possession under rent law require strict proof of statutory ingredients and legal possession

Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, an eviction petition based on bona fide residential need must specifically plead all statutory ingredients, including that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation; a bare plea of need is insufficient and evidence cannot cure the omission. The petition was therefore not maintainable on that ground. On parting with possession under section 14(1)(b), mere exclusive occupation by the tenant's brother does not by itself establish subletting or divestment of legal possession; the record showed only physical occupation, not surrender of the tenant's legal right. The eviction decree was set aside and the eviction application dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is maintainable when it pleads only bona fide requirement for residence but does not aver that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation; (ii) Whether the mere exclusive occupation of the premises by the tenant's brother, without more, establishes parting with possession under section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Issue (i): Whether an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is maintainable when it pleads only bona fide requirement for residence but does not aver that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

Analysis: The statutory ground under section 14(1)(e) comprises distinct conditions: ownership, bona fide residential requirement, and absence of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. These are pre-conditions to the exercise of jurisdiction and must be specifically pleaded so that the tenant may admit or deny each material fact and meet the case against him. A bare assertion of bona fide need, without the further averment that no other reasonably suitable accommodation exists, does not satisfy the statutory requirement. Evidence cannot cure the absence of a necessary pleading.

Conclusion: The eviction petition was not maintainable on the ground under section 14(1)(e) and the finding of eviction on that basis was against the landlord.

Issue (ii): Whether the mere exclusive occupation of the premises by the tenant's brother, without more, establishes parting with possession under section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Analysis: Parting with possession means divesting legal possession, not merely allowing another person to use or occupy the premises. Exclusive physical occupation by a brother does not by itself prove that the tenant has surrendered legal possession or has put himself out of the right to reclaim the premises. The material on record showed only the brother's presence and did not establish subletting, assignment, or abandonment of legal possession by the tenant.

Conclusion: The ground under section 14(1)(b) was not proved and the eviction order could not stand on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The eviction decree was set aside and the landlord's application for eviction was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the statutory ingredients of the ground relied upon must be specifically pleaded and proved, and parting with possession is established only when the tenant divests himself of legal possession, not by mere exclusive occupation of the premises by another person.

---