MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

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

Similar News