Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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