The Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by tenants who have been in occupation of a commercial shop since the 1940s, holding that a contractual agreement barring a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement is void under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani dismissed the petition seeking a review of the order dated August 05, 2025, and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioners. The Court observed that the landlord’s statutory right to file for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘DRC Act’) cannot be waived by a compromise deed, as such a contract would be void under Section 23 read with Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act.
Case Background
The petitioners (tenants) sought a review of the High Court’s order dated August 05, 2025, in RC. REV. 120/2019, which had upheld the eviction order passed on August 28, 2018, by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC, Pilot Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts.
The eviction decree pertained to a shop located in a wholesale market, which had been occupied by the petitioners for approximately 85 years. The last paid rent was recorded at Rs. 2,178 per month.
In its previous order, the High Court had observed that the Rent Controller had decided the issues of landlord-tenant relationship, bona fide requirement, and non-availability of alternate accommodation “with full deliberation and application of mind.”
Arguments of the Petitioners
Mr. Trilok Nath Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, raised two primary grounds for review:
- Waiver of Statutory Right: The counsel argued that the Court failed to consider the findings on the touchstone of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lachoo Mal vs. Radhey Shyam. It was submitted that a compromise was arrived at between the parties on August 28, 2008, in an earlier eviction petition (No. E-190/2008). The predecessors-in-interest of the respondents (landlords) had explicitly agreed that “neither he or his brother… or any heirs… shall hereafter file any petition on the ground u/s 14(1)(e)… against the present tenants.” This agreement was made in consideration of increasing the rent from Rs. 38 to Rs. 1,800 per month. The petitioners contended that this amounted to a valid waiver of the landlord’s statutory privileges.
- Partition of Waqf Property: The petitioners challenged the findings regarding the partition deed dated May 14, 2016. They argued that the subject premises being Waqf property, its character is permanent and cannot be partitioned. Relying on Chhedi Lal Misra vs. Civil Judge, Lucknow, they contended that the partition deed impermissibly changed the character of the Waqf property.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
On the Validity of the Compromise (Waiver)
The Court rejected the contention that the 2008 compromise barred the landlords from filing the present eviction petition. Justice Bhambhani held that such a restriction is unenforceable in law.
The Court observed:
“In the opinion of this court, the aforesaid contentions are misconceived and untenable, for the reason that such compromise cannot bar the respondents from filing an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. It is settled law that a contract barring a legal remedy is void under section 28 read with section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, regardless of any consideration that may have been received for such contract.”
The Court further noted that the predecessors-in-interest could not have conceded that neither they nor their dependents would ever have any bona fide requirements, as such needs can arise at any subsequent time. The argument that the arrangement amounted to a valid waiver was “considered only to be rejected.”
On the Partition of Waqf Property
Regarding the challenge to the partition deed, the Court upheld the Rent Controller’s finding. The Court reiterated that an eviction petitioner need not prove absolute ‘title’ but only a right superior to that of the tenant.
The Court noted that under the partition deed dated May 14, 2016, the parties had merely appointed the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents as Muttawalis (managers) and transferred the right to manage, let out, and receive rent.
The Court stated:
“None of the rights conferred upon the Muttawalis amounted to partitioning of Waqf property; and therefore, the question of change in the character of the Waqf property by reason of change in title, did not arise in the eviction proceedings.”
Furthermore, the Court held that since the petitioners had paid rent to the respondents’ father, thereby acknowledging him as their landlord, they were estopped from challenging the landlordship under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Decision
The High Court concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant a review of the order dated August 05, 2025.
While dismissing the petition, the Court took serious note of the prolonged litigation and the fact that the tenants had occupied the premises for over 85 years.
Justice Bhambhani ordered:
“However, in view of the petitioners’ conduct of having filed the present review petition despite all the points raised having been duly dealt-with by the learned Rent Controller; and despite the fact that the petitioners have occupied the subject premises for more than 85 years, the present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- payable by the petitioners to Friendicoes SECA…”
The costs are to be paid within four weeks, and proof of payment must be placed on record.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Mohd Yahya & Ors v. Farat Ara & Ors
- Case Number: RC.REV. 120/2019 (Review Pet. 466/2025)
- Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
- Citation: 2025:DHC:10097
