MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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