High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

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

 

Similar News