In a significant ruling concerning long-standing tenancy disputes in Delhi’s old commercial markets, the Delhi High Court on 17 November 2025 dismissed a review petition filed by the tenants—Mohd. Yahya and others—who have occupied a shop in a major wholesale market since the 1940s. The tenants sought reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order upholding their eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
The petitioners argued that a 2008 compromise prevented the landlords from ever filing an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming that the landlords had permanently waived their right to seek eviction in exchange for a rent increase from ₹38 to ₹1,800 per month. They further contended that the premises, being Waqf property, could not have been partitioned among family members, and that several other vacant shops were available to the landlords, negating any bona fide requirement.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that any agreement permanently barring a party from pursuing legal remedies is void under Sections 28 and 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The Court observed that no landlord can contractually give up the right to seek eviction based on future bona fide need, as those needs may arise at any time. Additionally, the Court clarified that the 2016 partition deed did not alter the Waqf character of the property; it merely appointed muttawalis (managers) empowered to manage, lease, and evict tenants—functions well-recognised under Waqf law.
The Court also reaffirmed that tenants who have paid rent to the landlords are legally estopped from disputing the landlord’s title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. It upheld the Rent Controller’s findings that the landlords had no suitable alternate accommodation and that their requirement for the premises was genuine.
Finding no error apparent on the record, the Court dismissed the review petition and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioners for prolonging litigation already pending for years. The tenants were directed to deposit the costs with Friendicoes SECA within four weeks and file proof with the Registry.
The ruling reiterates that statutory eviction rights cannot be contracted away and that bona fide landlord requirements continue to receive strong judicial protection, even in long-standing tenancy arrangements.
Mohd. Yahya & Ors. v. Farat Ara & Ors., 17-11-2025