Delhi High Court on Eviction Petition: Review Petition Dismissed.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition against its earlier order upholding the eviction of long-term tenants under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court held that prior compromises or agreements cannot bar a statutory right to seek eviction, that management rights over Waqf property do not alter its character, and that bona-fide requirement of the landlord justifies eviction. The petitioners, who had occupied the premises for over 85 years, were ordered to pay costs of ₹50,000.

Background:

Petitioners occupied a shop in a Delhi wholesale market since the 1940s.

Respondents filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, claiming bona-fide requirement.

The Rent Controller allowed eviction, which was upheld by the High Court on 05.08.2025.

Petitioners filed a review petition, claiming:

A 2008 compromise barred eviction petitions by respondents’ predecessors.

The property is Waqf property; the 2016 partition deed violated its character.

Alternate vacant premises were available.

Court’s Observations:

1. 2008 Compromise: Cannot bar statutory rights. Any contract preventing legal remedy is void under Sections 23 & 28 of the Indian Contract Act. Bona-fide requirement may arise in the future, so prior waivers cannot negate statutory entitlement.
2. Partition of Waqf Property: Appointment of Muttawalis (managers) under 2016 deed did not transfer ownership or alter Waqf character. Eviction petitioner need not prove title; only superior rights over the tenant.
3. Bona-fide Requirement & Alternate Premises: No suitable alternate premises were available. Petitioners had paid rent acknowledging landlordship, and were estopped from disputing respondents’ rights under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Section 14(1)(e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Grounds for eviction based on bona-fide requirement.
2. Section 23 & 28, Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Void agreements against legal rights.
3. Section 116, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Estoppel in acknowledging landlordship.

Decision:

1. Review petition dismissed.
2. Costs: ₹50,000 payable by petitioners to Friendicoes SECA within 4 weeks.
3. Petitioners directed to provide proof of payment; Registry to report non-compliance.

Citation: 2025:DEL:RC.REV.120/2019

Case: Mohd Yahya & Ors. v. Farat Ara & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Date of Decision: 17 November 2025

Review Petition No.: 466 of 2025