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 Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Requirement for Ground Floor Accommodation Justified for Senior Citizens with Health Issues: Delhi HC Upholds Eviction of Tenants

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, has upheld an eviction order against tenants under Section 14(1)€ of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The judgment, pronounced by Justice Girish Kathpalia, reiterates the significance of bona fide requirement of landlords for eviction, especially in cases involving senior citizens with health issues.

Legal Point of the Judgement: The court dealt with the challenge against an eviction order citing the grounds of bona fide requirement for residential and commercial purposes. The petitioners, tenants, contested the eviction, claiming there was no bona fide need and that alternate accommodation was available for the landlords.

Facts and Issues: The case (RC.REV. 570/2015) involved a dispute over a ground floor shop occupied by the tenants. The landlords, being senior citizens with medical conditions, required the premises for their residence and to restart their business after the demolition of their previous shop.

The Court found that the landlords’ requirement for the ground floor accommodation was genuine and justified, considering their age and health conditions.

While the tenants had the right to contest under Section 25B(8) of the Act, the Court observed that this right does not negate the validity of an eviction order unless supported by substantial evidence.

The tenants’ suggestion for the landlords to use the first-floor accommodation was deemed impractical due to the landlords’ medical conditions and lack of privacy, thus justifying the need for the ground floor.

The High Court’s jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B(8) was to ensure legal compliance by the Rent Controller and not to undertake a complete re-evaluation of facts. The Court found the Rent Controller’s decision in line with legal norms.

Decision: The Court upheld the eviction order, dismissing the petition filed by the tenants. The decision affirms the legitimacy of eviction based on bona fide requirement, particularly for elderly landlords with health complications.

Date of Decision: April 03, 2024

RAJ KUMAR VERMA & ORS vs LATE NANAK CHAND 

Latest Legal News