SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family  ||  J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation  ||  Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable  ||  Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail  ||  Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence  ||  Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla  ||  Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator    

Satpal Singh Sarna & Ors vs. Satya Prakash Bansal (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3323) - (High Court of Delhi) (29 Apr 2024)

Court would intervene only where the view taken and reasoning advanced by the Rent Controller suffers the vice of perversity

MANU/DE/3107/2024

Tenancy

By way of present petition brought under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the landlords have assailed order of the learned Rent Controller, whereby the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the petitioners was dismissed after full dress trial.

Scope of proceedings under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act is extremely limited and does not permit the High Court to venture into re-appreciation of evidence. But where the view taken and reasoning advanced by the Rent Controller suffers the vice of perversity, this court cannot, but intervene.

It is trite that, mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in landlord's favour that his requirement of the occupation of the tenanted premises is real and genuine; in this regard, the tenant has to submit the necessary pleadings as well as cogent evidence to prove his plea.

Even where the landlord permanently residing abroad desires to occasionally visit India, she or he cannot be deprived of her or his right to claim stay in her or his own house and in such case, the tenant cannot claim better right. In the case of S.P. Kapoor vs Kamal Mahavir Prasad Murarka, this court held that where the landlord is permanently settled out of Delhi but during his visits to Delhi wants to stay in his own premises, which are under occupation of a tenant, bona fide of his desire and requirement cannot be a suspect.

The reasoning advanced by the learned Rent Controller is completely perverse and calls for intervention of this court under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act. On account of complete absence of specific pleadings from the side of Respondent, complete absence of affirmative evidence coupled with no effective cross examination, Present Court find no reason to suspect genuineness of requirement of subject premises as set up by the Petitioners. The impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the eviction petition is allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to recover possession of the subject premises.

Tags : TENANCY   RENT CONTROLLER   DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT   SECTION 25B(8)  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved