Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Tenant's Claim of Ownership Dismissed Due to Lack of Evidence: High Court of Delhi Upholds Eviction Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi has upheld an eviction order passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, dismissing the revision petition filed by Kamal Kumar Bahari against the deceased Moti Lal Jain's legal representatives.

Key Details:

In the case (RC.REV. 290/2023), Mr. Kamal Kumar Bahari, represented by advocates Mr. Pankaj Vivek and Mr. Harshit Chopra, challenged the eviction order pertaining to a hall located on the second floor of property No. G-I/2, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi. The respondents were represented by Mr. Anuj Jain.

Observations by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia:

Justice Kathpalia noted, "In such a case, if leave to contest is granted, pushing the parties to undergo churning and rigmaroles of full dress trial, which can go on for years, would be a travesty of justice and would militate against the basic principles underlying Chapter III of the Delhi Rent Control Act for summary proceedings." This observation was pivotal in the dismissal of the revision petition.

Background of the Case:

The original eviction petition was filed by Mr. Moti Lal Jain, citing the need for the property for his business. Mr. Bahari contested, claiming ownership of the premises through a purchase from the previous owner, Mr. Om Prakash Sachdeva. The Rent Controller dismissed the tenant's application for leave to contest, leading to the current revision petition.

Court's Ruling:

The court emphasized that the tenant failed to provide substantial evidence of his claim of ownership. In contrast, the respondents had established a better title over the premises through comprehensive documents, including a Lease Deed, Agreement to Sell, and a Will. The court also dismissed the petitioner's argument regarding the stamping of documents, referring to a Supreme Court ruling stating non-stamping or inadequate stamping as a curable defect.

Date of Decision: 01.02.2024

KAMAL KUMAR BAHARI VS MOTI LAL JAIN

Latest Legal News