Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

Landlords Retain Legal Rights Until Physical Possession Taken by Government: Delhi High Court in Eviction Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Delhi, in a landmark judgment, underscored the legal rights of landlords in eviction cases, even in the context of land acquisition by the government. The court, led by Hon’ble Justice Dharmesh Sharma, dismissed a revision petition filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Case No. RC.REV. 409/2018 & CM APPL. 34567/2018), involving petitioners Vinay Kumar Verma & Anr. And respondent Harjit Singh Shah.

In its ruling, the court firmly stated, “so long as the land sought to be acquired is not physically taken over or actual physical possession is not taken over by the government in pursuance of acquisition proceedings, the owner/landlord continues to retain all legal rights therein.” This pronouncement highlights the court’s recognition of property owners’ rights amidst government land acquisition processes.

The case revolved around the petitioners' attempt to evict the respondent from a property under the pretext of personal necessity for starting a business. However, the respondent contested the eviction, challenging both the landlord-tenant relationship and the petitioners’ ownership, referring to the alleged government acquisition of the property.

In its judgment, the High Court identified several inconsistencies in the petitioners’ eviction claim, including confusion over the property number and discrepancies in the stated rent amount. The court noted the absence of clear evidence regarding the induction of the respondent as a tenant, which contributed to its decision to grant leave to defend to the respondent.

Additionally, the court observed that the petitioners inadequately presented their need for additional accommodation, remarking that the eviction petition appeared to be pursued in a half-hearted manner. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and the respondent was directed to file a written statement within 30 days. The case is set to proceed further on January 12, 2024.

D.D: 29 November 2023

VINAY KUMAR VERMA & ANR. VS HARJIT SINGH SHAH

Latest Legal News