138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High 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