Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC

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

 

Latest Legal News