Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Emotional and Business Dependence Recognized in Eviction Proceedings: Delhi HC Upholds Landlord's Bona Fide Need for Premises

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld an eviction order in the case of RC.REV. 128/2020, Charanjeet Singh vs Vivek Jain, emphasizing the broader interpretation of 'dependence' in eviction cases under the Delhi Rent Control Act, specifically Section 14(1)(e). The court recognized not just financial but also emotional and business dependence as legitimate grounds for a landlord's bona fide requirement of the rented premises.

Justice Girish Kathpalia, in his ruling, stated, "The emotional dependence of the landlord on his family members and vice versa cannot be ignored in the proceedings of the present nature... The dependence in such proceedings has to be interpreted judiciously keeping in mind intent behind the enactment."

The case revolved around the landlord's need for the premises for expanding his family business and storing business goods, with the petitioner, a tenant, challenging the eviction order. The tenant's application for leave to contest the eviction was previously dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Controller. The High Court delved into the necessity of an affidavit supporting the application for leave to contest, following the precedent in Gian Chand vs Roop Narain, and decided not to dismiss the application on technical grounds despite some deficiencies in the affidavit.

One of the crucial points of the judgment was the court's interpretation of 'hardship to tenant', where it was observed that "the inconvenience and hardship that would be caused to the tenant in case of eviction cannot be a ground to protect him if otherwise the case set up by the landlord falls within the parameters prescribed by law."

The court also dismissed the tenant's claims regarding the employment status of the landlord’s sons and the availability of alternate accommodation, citing a lack of substantive evidence. In its decision, the High Court emphasized that the landlord’s bona fide need for premises for business expansion was legitimate and supported by law.

Date of Decision: 01.02.2024

Charanjeet Singh VS Vivek Jain

 

Similar News