In a recent verdict, the Delhi High Court lamented the prolonged nature of disputes between landlords and tenants, highlighting that such conflicts often drag on for over a decade. Justice Girish Kathpalia made these remarks while overturning a decision by the rent controller that had dismissed the eviction plea of several individuals claiming ownership of ground floor shops and seeking the removal of tenants.
Justice Kathpalia pointed out a common trend where tenants occupy rented spaces but keep them closed, resorting to tactics such as withholding rent or offering payments to landlords to vacate. These practices, he emphasized, are detrimental and ought to be curtailed. While acknowledging the constraints imposed by the Rent Act on the High Court’s jurisdiction, he asserted that intervention becomes necessary when the Rent Controller’s reasoning appears flawed.
Furthermore, the court underscored the legitimacy of the petitioners’ desire to return to their homeland and reside with their families, particularly considering their age and the adulthood of their children. Dismissing the Rent Controller’s argument that the petitioners failed to demonstrate their intent to settle their children in India, the court affirmed the inherent right of individuals residing abroad to return to their native homes and occupy their own properties. In such instances, the court stressed, tenants cannot assert superior rights over the property.
The court unequivocally affirmed the petitioners’ genuine need and quashed the rent controller’s decision, which had denied the landlord’s request for possession of the property. In doing so, it upheld the principle that individuals have a rightful claim to their ancestral homes, regardless of their current place of residence.
