Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

Landlord's relatives can be included under 'dependent' for eviction: SC

03 September 2024 9:59 AM

By: Admin


On April 25, 2023, Supreme Court, in a recent judgement KUSUM LATA SHARMA Vs ARVIND SINGH, held that the High Court cannot reverse the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller on the ground of a so-called misdescription of the property without considering the clarification before the Rent Controller and the findings of the Rent Controller. And the expressions “family” and “dependent” for the purpose of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 deserve to be construed broadly and liberally so as to include the relatives of the landlord and not strictly to include wholly dependent persons only.

The case involved an appeal filed by a widow who sought eviction of her tenants from her property, which she acquired from her brother-in-law. She claimed that the premises were required bona fide by her for use and occupation of herself and other members of her joint family. The eviction petitions filed by the appellant-landlord were governed by Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

The Rent Controller accepted the case of the appellant regarding her bona fide requirement and ordered eviction of the tenants. The orders so passed by the Rent Controller were questioned by the tenants in respective revision petitions before the High Court, which dealt with the said revision petitions in terms of Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

The Supreme Court observed that under the said provision, pure finding of fact is not open for interference unless such a finding is given on a wrong premise of law. It further held that the High Court has gone far beyond the limited scope of revision in terms of Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court restored the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

The Court also granted the respective tenants time to vacate the suit premises by 31.12.2023 on the condition of their depositing the entire due rent before the Rent Controller within four weeks from the date of the judgement, as well as on their submitting an undertaking before the Rent Controller to continue to make payment of rent/mesne profits and to vacate the suit premises within the time granted by the Court, and not to assign, sub-let, or part with the same and not to cause prejudice to the landlord in relation to the premises in question in any manner.

KUSUM LATA SHARMA Vs ARVIND SINGH

Latest Legal News