The Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, dismissed a review petition filed by the tenants (Petitioners), upholding an earlier order that had affirmed the eviction of the tenants from a shop in a busy wholesale market. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record, rejecting the tenants’ primary arguments challenging the eviction.
Contract Barring Eviction under DRC Act Held Void
The main contention raised by the tenants was that the landlords’ predecessors-in-interest had previously entered into a compromise agreement dated 28.08.2008 in an earlier eviction petition. In consideration of raising the rent from Rs. 38/- to Rs. 1800/- per month, the landlords had agreed not to file any future petition under Section 14(1)(e) (bona fide requirement) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act).
The High Court decisively rejected this argument, ruling that such a contract is misconceived and untenable. The Court observed that a contract barring a legal remedy, such as the right to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, is void under Section 28 read with Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The judgment stressed that a bona fide requirement is a need that can arise at any subsequent time in the future, and therefore, predecessors could not concede that neither they nor any dependent family members would ever have such a requirement.
Waqf Property and Partition Issue Settled
The tenants also argued that a partition deed dated 14.05.2016 concerning the property, which is a Waqf property, was impermissible as it changed the property’s character.
The Court affirmed the Rent Controller’s finding that an eviction petitioner only needs to prove a right to the property superior to that of a tenant, and not absolute title. The partition deed in question had only appointed the respondents’ predecessors as Muttawalis (managers) of the premises and transferred the right to look after, let out, receive rent, and eject tenants, which did not amount to partitioning the Waqf property itself.
Furthermore, the Court held that the tenants were estopped from challenging the landlordship under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as they had previously paid rent to the father of the respondents, thereby acknowledging him as their landlord.
Costs Imposed on Petitioners
Considering the petitioners’ conduct of filing the review petition despite all points having been dealt with, and the fact that they have occupied the subject premises for over 85 years, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. This amount is payable by the petitioners to Friendicoes SECA, a charitable organization, within four weeks
MOHD YAHYA & ORS vs FARAT ARA & ORS, 17-11-2025