Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 Case

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Eviction Orders, Highlights Distinction Between Sections 14(1)(e) and 14(1)(g) of DRC Act

05 September 2024 5:34 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh, has set aside eviction orders and emphasized the critical distinction between Sections 14(1)(e) and 14(1)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act. The judgment, delivered on October 4, 2023, in the case of RC.REV. 540/2018 and connected petitions, revolves around the eviction of tenants from Katra Ganga Bishan, Bagh Raoji, Gaushala Marg, Kishanganj, Delhi – 110006, owned by the petitioner, Vijay Kumar Farshwal.

The Hon'ble Justice Singh's observations shed light on the legal intricacies of eviction under the DRC Act. In a significant ruling, the court clarified that the mere labeling of an eviction petition as a "bona fide need" under Section 14(1)(e) cannot bypass the requirements of Sections 14(1)(f) and 14(1)(g), which pertain to reconstruction, demolition, and rebuilding of premises. Justice Singh noted, "Eviction sought under Section 14(1)(e) includes the need by the landlord for the purpose of running a business or conducting commercial activity." This distinction underscores the importance of correctly categorizing eviction petitions and their implications.

Furthermore, the judgment highlights the limited scope of review petitions. Justice Singh reiterated that review petitions should not be allowed to function as "appeals in disguise." He emphasized that a review can only be sought if there is an "error apparent on the face of the order" and that erroneous decisions cannot be reheard and corrected through the review process.

The judgment also addressed the timing of review petitions and the power of Rent Controllers. It emphasized that while Rent Controllers may not have the power to recall an order, they can review their own orders under certain circumstances, particularly if a miscarriage of justice is evident.

This judgment is expected to have significant implications for eviction proceedings under the DRC Act, providing clarity on the distinctions between various eviction grounds and the appropriate procedures to be followed. It reaffirms the importance of adhering to the legal provisions and procedures specified in the Act when seeking eviction of tenants in Delhi.

Date of Decision: 04 October 2023

VIJAY KUMAR FARSHWAL  vs SHRI KISHAN LAL 

Latest Legal News