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 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

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