Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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