Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Delhi High Court Upholds Landlord's Right to Eviction Based on Bona Fide Requirement

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court, led by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, has upheld the eviction order against tenants of a shop in Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, emphasizing the bona fide requirement of the landlord under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

The case, titled SH. ANIL WADHWA & ANR. vs. SH. M.M.L. KAPUR, revolved around the eviction of tenants from a ground floor shop. The landlord, a senior citizen with health issues, argued for the necessity of the space for personal use. The judgment, pronounced on January 3, 2024, meticulously evaluated the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, particularly Section 25(B)(8) and Section 14(1)(e).

Justice Ganju noted, “It is settled law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 25(B)(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, this Court does not act as a Court of appeal. This Court has only to see whether the learned Additional Rent Controller has committed any jurisdictional error and has passed the order on ignorance of material available before it which makes the order not in accordance with the law.”

The tenants challenged the eviction, questioning the landlord's bona fide need, given his US citizenship and the existence of alternative accommodations. However, the Court observed that the landlord's advanced age and health conditions, which limit his mobility, make the ground floor space critically necessary.

“The requirement of the demised Premises is bona fide,” the Court declared, emphasizing that the landlord's need for residential space on the ground floor was genuine, given his inability to use stairs and lack of suitable alternative accommodation in Delhi.

The judgment also addressed the tenants' contention regarding alternative accommodation within the property, concluding that the other spaces were neither suitable nor convenient for the landlord's needs.

In dismissing the revision petition filed by the tenants, the Court reinforced the principle that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord regarding their requirement of the property.

Date of Decision: January 03, 2024

ANIL WADHWA & ANR.VS SH. M.M.L. KAPUR   

 

Similar News