MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Desire To Return Home In Old Age Is A Bona Fide Requirement: Delhi HC Allows Eviction Of Tenant For Landlord’s Settlement And Children’s Marriage

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi has set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and allowed the eviction of a tenant to enable the landlords, Satpal Singh Sarna and others, to reconstruct their property and settle in India.

The petitioners had approached the High Court under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, challenging the Rent Controller’s dismissal of their eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)€. They claimed a bona fide requirement of the premises for their settlement in India and arranging marriages for their children.

The petitioners are owners of ground floor shops, part of premises at C-141, Clock Tower, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. They argued that the property is in a dilapidated condition and insufficient to accommodate the family members who frequently visit from Canada. The eviction was contested by the tenant, Satya Prakash Bansal, who claimed that the petitioners lacked a bona fide need and were instead motivated by a desire to re-let at higher rents.

Justice Girish Kathpalia meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, emphasizing the emotional and practical necessities of the petitioners. The Court noted:

Bona Fide Requirement: The claim by petitioners that they intend to return to India for their twilight years was found to be bona fide. The Court observed, “It is a natural aspiration for a landlord to return to his homeland in old age.”

Tenant’s Use of Premises: It was admitted during proceedings that the tenant had not been using the premises for several years, which underscored the landlords’ claim.

Insufficiency of Accommodation: The judge highlighted that the combined family’s need for space justifies the plan to reconstruct the premises.

Lack of Rebuttal from Tenant: The Court pointed out the absence of specific pleadings or affirmative evidence from the tenant’s side challenging the landlords’ need.

The Court allowed the eviction petition, directing that the landlords are entitled to recover possession of the shops concerned. However, execution of this order is deferred for six months in line with Section 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Date of Decision: April 29, 2024.

Satpal Singh Sarna & Ors versus Satya Prakash Bansal

 

Latest Legal News