The Delhi High Court emphasized that evicting a tenant from their residence shouldn't strip them of their right to livelihood and dignity, especially based solely on factors like advanced age and frail health.

The court ruled in favor of the individual's necessity for the property to operate their business. Additionally, the court dismissed the tenant's claim that doubts regarding the landlord's ability to conduct business due to age and health rendered the landlord's statements unreliable.

In addition, the court dismissed the tenant's appeal contesting the eviction order issued by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC).

Justice Girish Kathpalia's bench emphasized that there was no evidence to support the tenant's claim that the landlord was incapacitated or that his financially independent son was responsible for his care.

The landlord, asserting ownership of a shop located in the Paharganj area, had submitted a petition to the trial court seeking the tenant's eviction on this basis. He contended that he required the premises for conducting his business, citing a lack of suitable alternative accommodation options.

It was also argued that he had to close his earlier business, which was in a residential area.

Instead, he was allotted a plot of land in Bawana by the authorities, but he left it due to distance and his old age.