Supreme Court Passes Ejectment Order Against An 82 Year Old Man; Directs Him To Vacate Premises Within A Year
|The Supreme Court passed an ejectment order against an eighty two year old man and directed him to vacate premises before 28th February 2025.
The court warned him that failure to comply with the terms of the resolution of the tenancy dispute could result in the landlord initiating either ejectment or contempt proceedings against the tenant.
The Court passed an ejectment order favouring a landlord under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 (the Act).
A tenancy dispute arose between the parties regarding a property.
The matter was remanded to the Rent Controller by the Delhi High Court for adjudication under the Act. The respondent, who was the tenant, had been occupying the premises under a written lease deed with a monthly rental which was later enhanced by the landlord.
Both parties sought an amicable resolution of the dispute on the terms which were orally spelt out during the course of proceedings by the Supreme Court.
Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “The undertaking, oral in nature, is accepted and taken on record making the tenant aware of the consequence of breach thereof, including initiation of proceedings for contempt…It stands clarified that in the event of failure of the tenant to comply with the same, it shall be open to the landlord to immediately initiate appropriate proceedings for ejectment, as also contempt of Court.”
Sr. Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan represented the petitioner, while AOR Krishan Kumar appeared for the respondents.
The tenant had lost his wife during the time of COVID19 and was granted time to vacate the demised premises. The Court directed the tenant to “hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the landlords before such date.”
The Court made the tenant aware of the consequence of breach of the order which could include initiation of proceedings for contempt. The tenant was also ordered to clear the arrears of rent, to not create any encumbrance, and to not transfer possession of the demised premises.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Swami Goverdhan Rangachariji & Ors. v. M/S. A.J. Printers (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 141)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Sr. Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan; AOR Saurabh Balwani; Advocates Jhanvi Dubey and Chirag Pathor
Respondent: AOR Krishan Kumar; Advocates S.K. Sharma, Rahul Sharma, Neetu Sharma, Seemant K. Garg and Nitin Pal