#property Archives - Prime Legal

18 May

An Analysis of the Realm of the Human Body through the Laws of Poperty

Articles #Anatomy, #HumanBody, #precedents, #property, #propertylaw

ABSTRACT

This article explores the concept of human body rights throughout history and in the current legal system. It argues that the human body is fundamentally different from traditional property and that current legal frameworks struggle to define ownership of the body and its parts. The analysis examines historical perspectives, including Roman law and the Justinian school of thought. Contemporary legal debates are highlighted through recent precedents set by Courts of Law. The unresolved questions such as how the liberal philosophies impact the current discussions and whether or not the Human Body is a separate entity with ownership rights are also raised here.

CENTRAL ARGUMENT

The article’s main argument is that conventional property law faces a special challenge from the human body. The human body and its products (cells, organs) are hard to classify under current legal frameworks, unlike land or objects. This ambiguity makes it necessary to reassess the philosophical and legal definitions of property ownership in light of societal shifts and technological improvements.

INTRODUCTION

It is clear by looking at the many aspects of property law and the tenets of property rights that these ideas came about when people began to perceive objects as belonging to them. Among them are kingdoms, lands, decorations, bonds, and sometimes even the natural world. But the first thing a person has a right to call their own after birth is their body. The multiple organs comprised in the wide range of organ systems each have diverse functions, differentiate at birth to fulfill certain roles, etc. And we as a being with consciousness have rights and ownership attached to it. This article examines human body rights from the time of the Titans to the modern democratic era in order to better understand how laws, rules, morality, and philosophical understandings have developed in the particular domain of the human body as property or a right over one’s own body. The purpose of this study piece is to emphasize that the human body is, possibly, the most important aspect that unifies social, legal, biological, and anthropological principles. With the development of technology, the domain of the human body and vested rights grows, and it is the responsibility of the law to keep up with these developments by expanding and becoming more comprehensive as necessary. Reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination and kidney donation that save the lives of family members are examples of this, as are the use of cadavers to teach medical students. In order to compare them with contemporary issues, this article looks at the legal and philosophical frameworks that currently govern the property rights of the human body.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

THE PRINCIPLE ACCESSIO

This illustrates the Roman paradigm of jurisprudential reasoning, which rests on a foundational idea but keeps it tightly bound. The legal term “ACCESS′SIO” designates a union of two objects such that one is seen as a component portion of the other; one is regarded as the principal, and the other as an addition or accession to it. There are situations when it can be unclear which should be regarded as the main item and which as an addition. However, the owner of the major item, whatever it may be, also acquired ownership of the accession. The most widely accepted type of accesio is that which results from the union of an object with the ground; once the object and the ground are fully united, the object belongs to the person who owns the ground. Buildings that are constructed on another person’s land belong to the owner of the original land, unless they have been constructed of movable materials.

The Justinian school of thought, which maintains that something is either owned by the person who created it or that it does not belong to them at all and is instead the property of the person who created it, is another concept that is closely related to a framework of discussion regarding the origins of the idea that the human body is property. It was also expressed this kind of thinking when acknowledged that the central idea of the Roman school of law was that property belonged to the creator rather than the owner, or the other way around.

If we consider a human cell or any other kind of cell that is truly only used in laboratory conditions and research initiatives. It is crucial to understand that sometimes specimens from procedures like biopsies, such as blood samples or pieces of microscopic tissue structures may be needed. When a lab researcher is working with a sample of blood leucocytes, thrombocytes, or tissues, for example, an individual has the right to possess certain types of cells in certain circumstances. Likewise, in the event that a protein or any kind of segmental DNA is separated, the lab’s researcher and, on occasion, the lab itself have a right to property in a noticeable separation. There are situations in which it may be necessary to question samples of human body or lineal tissue. Under the Material Transfer Agreement, these particular assets are specifically covered.

THEORY OF ATTACHMENT

It is a Doctrine brought forth by the Western Countries which could be briefly explained as anything that is no longer owned by you or is not connected to your body is not your property. For instance, donating your blood to a hospital.

THE DILEMMA OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE HUMAN BODY IN THE PRESENT WORLD

Various cases have been reported to courts across the globe in a variety of formats, including the assignment of a right to reclaim property that has been pilfered, such as human body parts, blood samples, and even spermatocytes. When it comes to figuring out whether a right to property or a right to inherit property can be linked to a conflict between a legislator and a court of law, all of these cases have shown that the common law leaves no space for interpretation.

The three fundamental tenets of modern property law are deposition, exclusion, and possession. It is challenging to distinguish precisely between the three fundamental qualities of these features and the human body as a whole. Consequently, it is imperative to examine these components from an opposing perspective. If our problems with the existing principles of property law cannot be resolved, there are two ways in which we might address the ambiguity in line with these criteria that we apply to establish who is the owner of the human body and its products.

While taking a different approach to investigating the legal perspective on the concept of the human body instead of trying to reach a conclusive answer to the question of whether or not a human body is property. In the case of R v. Bentham, a man who was suspected of possessing a firearm but was actually holding his hands under his jacket was found not to have been liable under possession when the court ruled that an unreserved hand could not be considered a competent thing. A person’s hand or even a finger is not a thing at all because they do not exist and do not understand property in the sense of a separate object.

In another case Yearworth v. North Bristol NHS Trust, The court made an effort to discuss the possibility that a man’s donated sperm could be inherited by his spouse. The decision appeared to take precedence over the established hospital protocols regarding admittance or rejection of patients’ sperm assistance. Furthermore, it was thought that while coming to this decision should most likely be from the standpoint of common sense or even a common law principle. It had been determined that semen kept in storage belongs to an individual and can be inherited.

As a result, it is evident to us that the common law court has established numerous cases that explain the discussion surrounding property rights concerning the human body as well as technology, biological development aids, legislation, and societal developments.

The subject of corpses being used by medical students to be taught about anatomy and, whether a body devoid of soul should be regarded as a thing or not was recently raised by the courts, however as of right now, the property right of a deceased corpse remains unrecognized. However, the common law theory of today has changed to reflect the advancements in medical technology, requiring that a dead body be distinguished from a body employed for study.

THE QUESTION “IS THE HUMAN BODY VIABLE TO BE A PROPERTY?” IN INDIA

Given that people had total ownership over their bodies, it should have been legal to sell one’s body for prostitution, end one’s life by euthanasia, or receive payment for donating one’s organs. According to a similar line of reasoning, exercising the right to exercise should not be affected by drug usage, poisoning consumption, or building jumping. Unquestionably, these rights are an essential component of ownership. Such practices are however usually condemned/prohibited and carry criminal repercussions in our country.

Thus, it can be said that humans do not legally have whole or absolute ownership over their bodies based on the ideas above. Nonetheless, it appears that there are two circumstances in which a person’s property rights may be recognized by the law, such as when:

The person is dead, their autonomy is no longer relevant and they are no longer the original occupant of the body.

The body’s components can either be separated or regenerate, and they don’t seem to be inextricably connected to a person’s ability to survive and be autonomous. The original occupant of the body retains full capacity to make decisions even after they are removed.

CONCLUSION

It can be observed that there is a lack of a precise definition of “property” by relating property principles to the human body. It is crucial to understand that the concept of a right to property, such as land or other immovable property, is distinct from the concept of a property right related to a human body and its derivatives. The most crucial thing to keep in mind, therefore, considering the case law and historical debates, is that the fundamental questions we must ask ourselves are “What is Property according to law” and “What is Property that is based on philosophy.” It is questioned whether a liberal approach philosophy should or shouldn’t be used to try to rationalize a situation where the idea that the human body is an independent institution. The relationship between property rights and individual liberty is just one of the several subjects that could lead to conversation.

It is indisputable that technology and other cutting-edge innovations have had an immense effect on molding our civilization. It acts as a counterbalance to the notion that shifts in society will unavoidably have an impact on the state and, thus, state laws. It might be necessary to amend laws and philosophical frameworks in light of these technological breakthroughs, which permits us to understand the profound changes that the legal profession has experienced recently, as well as the consequences that have ensued.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Article written by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

17 May

Delhi High Court Affirms Eviction Order in Delhi Rent Control Act Dispute, Rejects Petition on Bona Fide Requirement Claim

Prime Legal

Blog #bonafideclaim, #delhihighcourt, #delhirentandcontrolact, #eviction, #Notice, #property, #rent

Delhi High Court Affirms Eviction Order in Delhi Rent Control Act Dispute, Rejects Petition on Bona Fide Requirement Claim

Case Name: Scon Financial Services Pvt Ltd v. S C Kaura

Case No.: RC.REV. 358/2023

Dated: May 15,2024

Quorum: Justice Girish Kathpalia

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, claiming to be the owner of the ground floor flat at 49, Basant Enclave, New Delhi (henceforth referred to as “the subject premises”). The petitioner claimed that, by virtue of a rent agreement, the petitioner (previously known as M/s Sarein Consultants Pvt. Ltd.) was inducted as a tenant in the subject premises with effect from 01.12.1988 for the general manager, Mr. Shiv Kumar Vasesi, for residential purposes.

The rent for the petition was Rs. 2,420/-per month, excluding water and electricity charges. He currently has a legitimate need for the subject premises as a place to live and doesn’t have access to a suitably adequate substitute. Due to his marital strife, he had been living with his sister in the government housing that was assigned to her.

However, on December 31, 2004, when she retired, they moved into her Dwarka flat. He wedded Ms. Promila on July 23, 2005, following the breakdown of his first marriage, and he retired from the military on August 31, 2005. He had been living in several rented properties with his wife since May 2011, during which time she also passed away.

The tenant/petitioner submitted an application for leave to contest after receiving the summons in the prescribed format. In it, they made a wide claim that the respondent/landlord had hidden not only his property but also all other properties, including his dwelling property in New Delhi. The respondent/landlord’s demonstration of a non-genuine demand for the subject premises is demonstrated by the concealing of the additional accommodations that are available to him.

After considering all sides of the argument, the petitioner/tenant submitted a rebuttal to the application for leave to contest. The learned Additional Rent Controller then issued the contested order, denying the petitioner/tenant the opportunity to appeal the proceedings.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act- Vacant possession to landlord. In spite of any other laws that may be in place, if a tenant’s interest in a property is determined for any reason and an order is made by the Controller under this Act to recover possession of the property, all parties who may be occupying the property must abide by the terms of section 18, and the landlord will obtain vacant possession of the property by evicting all such parties from it. However, nothing in this section will apply to any parties who have an independent title to the property.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that from a legal standpoint, the contested order cannot stand. The petitioner, who is also the tenant, contended that the petition is not legitimate since the landlord, who is the respondent, failed to reveal his affiliation with the Green Park property. The respondent, or landlord, filed rent deeds displaying his dwellings in leased premises, but the learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner further contended that as the documents were not registered or stamped, the learned Additional Rent Controller should have seized them.

He also contended that the contested order is unsustainable. On behalf of the petitioner/tenant, it was contended that the petition lacked genuineness because the landlord/respondent failed to reveal his relationship to the Green Park property. The learned attorney representing the tenant/peter further contended that since the respondent/landlord’s rent deeds, which list his houses on leased property, are not stamped or registered, the learned Additional Rent Controller should have seized them.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the current petition is without merit and backed the contested eviction decision. After walking me through the opposing pleadings, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord cited the order dated 18.12.2023 of the previous bench in support of his argument that the petitioner/tenant had not presented any evidence at all to support a leave to contest request, even though notice of the current proceedings had been given to them on the limited portion of the Green Park property.

To bolster his contention that a tenant cannot be granted permission to contest based solely on unsubstantiated allegations, the landlord’s/respondent’s knowledgeable legal representative cited numerous court rulings, such as Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 (6) SCC 30; Hari Shankar vs. Madan Mohan Gupta, 111 (2004) DLT 534; and Suresh Chand vs. Vijay Shankar, 2024.

Even though the petitioner/tenant had been informed of the current proceedings on the limited portion of the Green Park property, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord cited the order dated 18.12.2023 of the previous bench to support his argument that they had not provided any evidence at all to support a leave to contest request.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court reviewed in terms of the legal position, the respondent/landlord claims that merely making bald assertions without providing any evidence is insufficient to allow permission to challenge the issues of a bona fide requirement and the existence of a reasonably appropriate alternative lodging.

The court further pronounced that the petitioner/tenant contends that only the allegations made in the affidavit requesting permission to contest are sufficient to create a triable issue; in support of this claim, the petitioner/tenant’s skilled counsel cited the ruling made by the Honourable Supreme Court.

The tenant’s averments in the affidavit requesting leave to contest must be supported by some credible evidence, according to the court’s considered opinion. If this were not the case, clever affidavit drafting would inevitably result in the grant of leave to contest, defeating the very purpose for which Chapter IIIA was added to the Act in 1976.

Regretfully, our judicial system does not guarantee the prompt determination of cases. Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, a tenancy lawsuit may take over ten years, or even longer, to get a final verdict.

Regarding the Green Park property, the petitioner/tenant entered into the record of the current proceedings a few carefully chosen documents from previous court cases involving the Green Park property and Smt. Promila, the now-deceased wife of the respondent/landlord, who was a party to those cases.

Lean legal counsel for the petitioner/tenant attempted to portray the respondent/landlord as having acquired a stake in the Green Park property following the death of his wife by using those handpicked documents.

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora

Click to view judgment.

17 May

Property’s Buyer Aware of Pending Appeal Cannot Claim Bona Fide Purchaser Status to Avoid Restitution: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog #property, #SupremeCourt

Case Title: BHIKCHAND S/O DHONDIRAM MUTHA (DECEASED) Vs SHAMABAI DHANRAJ GUGALE (DECEASED)

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5026 OF 2023

Order on: May 14, 2024

Quorum: J. HRISHIKESH ROY & J. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

Facts:

Bhikchand the appellant, borrowed Rs. 8,000 from Dhanraj, who later passed away, leaving his wife, Shamabai, as his legal representative. Shamabai sued Bhikchand to recover the loan, and the court partially ruled in her favor, awarding her the principal amount along with interest. However, Bhikchand appealed this decision, whereas on the other hand by that time, Shamabai started the process of selling Bhikchand’s properties to recover the debt.

While the appeal was going on, the appellate court reduced the amount which Bhikchand owed, but Shamabai had already sold his properties at auction to recover the original, higher amount. Upon realizing the discrepancy, Bhikchand sought restitution under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows for the reversal of a sale if a judgment is later changed. It was further argued that since the amount he owed had been reduced, the sale of his properties should be reversed or adjusted accordingly. However, the lower courts rejected his claim, stating that he hadn’t deposited any money with the court during the original judgment or the appeal process, so the principle of restitution couldn’t be applied.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The appellant in this case, Bhikchand, is arguing that he should get his property back because he thinks he paid too much. He borrowed money from Dhanraj (now deceased), but his wife Shamabai sold his properties to get the money back. However, when Bhikchand won his case on appeal, the court said he didn’t owe as much as they thought. So, the appellant herein, wants the court to undo the sale and give him his property back because he thinks it’s unfair to take it for a debt he doesn’t fully owe anymore. He’s saying that since the court changed how much he owed, they should also change what happened to his property.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The respondent, representing the interests of Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale (the decree holder), likely stated that the appellant should not be entitled to restitution as they tried to contend over the fact that the appellant failed to fulfil his obligations during the legal proceedings, such as not depositing any money with the court despite owing a debt. Moreover, they tried to establish that since the properties were sold to satisfy the original decree, any subsequent changes to the judgment should not affect the validity of the sale. Furthermore, they could have claimed that Bhikchand’s delay in seeking restitution and his lack of positive action should impede him from reversing the sale of the properties.

Legal Provisions:

Section 144 of CPC: Deals with the Application for restitution. It states about the act of restoring something to its rightful owner. This main concern of this section is – the court shall harm no one.

Issues framed by the Court

Whether Bhikchand, the judgment debtor, is entitled to restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Whether the sale of Bhikchand’s properties by Shamabai remains valid after the appellate court’s decision reduced the amount owed by Bhikchand.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

Based on the analysis made by the hon’ble court it determined whether Bhikchand, herein the appellant should get his properties back after they were sold to pay off a debt. It found that the appellant didn’t follow the right steps during the legal process, like not paying money he owed to the court. It was further stated that due to the reason that the properties were already sold to pay off the debt, the appellant couldn’t just change things later. They said Bhikchand waited too long to ask for his properties back and didn’t put enough potential to fix things earlier. So, the court decided that Bhikchand couldn’t get his properties back. They wanted to make sure the rules of the legal system were followed and that decisions about debts and property were final.

Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta

Click here to read the judgement

16 May

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Benami Land Transactions and Establishes Legal Precedents for Government Employees Engaging in Similar Transactions

Prime Legal

Blog #benami, #BenamiTransactionAct, #governmentemployee, #implications, #land, #property, #SupremeCourt

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Benami Land Transactions and Establishes Legal Precedents for Government Employees Engaging in Similar Transactions

Case Name: C Subbiah @ Kadambur jayaraj & Ors v. The Superintendent of Police & Ors

Case No.: SLP (Criminal) No(s). 8990 of 2019

Dated: May 15, 2024

Quorum: Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The complainant filed a complaint at the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kovilpatti, claiming among other things that he was a graduate of the MD programme with an M.Sc. On October 8, 2007, he was hired as a government instructor. The claimant had been making his living from the real estate sector for the previous sixteen years prior to being assigned as a Government teacher.

The complainant making the complaint was acquainted with Kannabiran, also known as “A-3,” who held a managerial position at the Kovilpatti branch of the State Bank of India (SBI). The complainant met A. Vijaya (hence referred to as “A-2”) and Subbiah @ Kadambur Jeyaraj (hereinafter referred to as “A1”) while working in the real estate industry.

The complaint was introduced to Chandrasekar (henceforth referred to as “A-4”), his son Pandiyaraj (henceforth referred to as “A-6”), his wife S. Pandiyammal (henceforth referred to as “A-5”), and his brother—all of whom were involved in the real estate industry—through A-1 and A-2.

Additionally, the plaintiff was duped into thinking that smaller plots would be acquired from the larger pieces of land so be cut up and sold to various people, which would regularly demand the seller’s personal presence, and given that the complainant was a teacher, hence he would experience difficulties if the land lots were to be put on file under his name.

As the appellants in this case, A 1–12 filed CRL.O.P.(MD) No. 3846 of 2013 to challenge the FIR and the charge sheet before the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench. The appeal by special leave is being challenged in this appeal, and the learned single judge of the Madras High Court dismissed the petition that the appellants had filed in their ruling of April 23, 2018.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 420 IPC- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— If someone deceives someone by cheating and then dishonestly persuades them to give up property to someone else, create, alter, or destroy a valuable security in whole or in part, or create something signed or sealed that has the potential to be turned into a valuable security, they will be subject to a fine and up to seven years of imprisonment of a similar kind.
Section 120(B) of IPC- Any individual involved in a criminal conspiracy that is not related to a criminal conspiracy to commit an act listed above faces a maximum sentence of six months in either type of jail, a fine, or both.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:

The learned counsel for the appellants fiercely and strongly argued that the charges listed in the charge sheet and the formal complaint are not sufficient to establish the offences claimed, even if they are accepted as genuine on the face of the record. A continuation of the proceedings in accordance with the charge sheet filed against the accused appellants would amount to a flagrant abuse of the legal process, he argued, given the acknowledged facts as stated in the complaint, which indicates that any disagreement between the parties is solely civil in nature.

The charge sheet makes it very evident that although the complainant received some of the selling proceeds from the land deals, he did not receive the full amount that was due to him. He further argued that since the complainant was a teacher employed by the government and was not permitted to engage in real estate transactions, he made the investments through the accused appellants in this case at his own risk.

He further said that when the profit-sharing component of the land deals failed to satisfy the complainant, he felt that the criminal legal system had been abused in order to bring a baseless case against the accused appellants.

The argument put forth by the knowledgeable senior attorney was that there is absolutely nothing in the case file that indicates the accused appellants intended to deceive the complainant at the outset of the transactions.

Furthermore, the accused appellants would not be found guilty of a criminal breach of trust because the complainant’s accusation concerns a disproportionate sharing of profits from land dealings that he entered into with their knowledge.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

The arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants were sharply and passionately rejected by the learned counsel for the respondent complaint as well as the learned Standing Counsel representing the State.

It was argued that the accused appellants deceitfully persuaded the complainant to make large investments in real estate transactions by gaining his trust through the use of phrases like “honey quoted.” The accused repeatedly assured the complainant that he would receive his rightful portion of the profits or the plots from the lands, as the case may be, which would be bought in the accused’s name because the complainant was not permitted to engage in such transactions as a government teacher.

The complainant committed large sums of money in land agreements, putting total faith in the accused appellants’ guarantees, after falling for their enticements. Nevertheless, the accused appellants broke their word and conned the complainant by not providing him with the necessary number of plots that would have been in line with his investment.

According to their argument, the fact that the complainant has already used a civil remedy for the same complaints does not automatically bar him from using the criminal court’s jurisdiction to hold the accused appellants accountable for their fraudulent acts. This is because the allegations made in the complaint are equivalent to both criminal and civil offences, allowing for the continuation of parallel legal proceedings.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court said that it was evident from the complaint that none of the allegations therein could support a finding that the accused appellants’ goal was to deceive the complainant right from the beginning of the transactions. Without a doubt, the accused appellants gave the complainant some plots and a portion of the profits from the land deals, but there is a disagreement over how much profit was made and whether the complainant’s share of the profits was fully satisfied in relation to his investments.

The court held that, at most, the complainant may use these accusations as justification to file a civil lawsuit against the accused appellants. However, Section 4 of the Benami Act prohibits such a remedy, as was previously mentioned.

With regard to the accused appellants, the court was firmly of the opinion that the accepted allegations included in the complaint and charge sheet did not establish the requisite elements of the offences punishable under Section 406 and Section 420 IPC. There is no denying that by abusing the criminal justice system, a civil issue has been given a criminal prosecution colour by means of accusations of fraud and criminal breach of confidence.

At the risk of repetition, it should be emphasised once more that the complainant was not permitted to sue the accused appellants for the identical set of facts and claims that form the basis of the criminal proceedings due to the explicit bar stated in Section 4 of the Benami Act.

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora.

Click to view judgment.

14 May

Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction Order in Landmark Rental Dispute: Lays down Implications for Property Owners and Tenants in Delhi

Prime Legal

Blog #delhihighcourt, #Dispute, #ownership, #property, #rent, #rentaldispute

Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction Order in Landmark Rental Dispute: Lays down Implications for Property Owners and Tenants in Delhi

Case Name: Nem Chand Jain v. Sanjay Kumar Jain & Anr

Case No.: RC.REV. 405/2014

Dated: May 13, 2024

Quorum: Justice Girish Kathpalia

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present respondents filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, claiming to be the owners of the shop Delhi. They claimed to be operating under the name M/s. Sagar Chand Jain and to be in the business of selling cards and stationery from tenanted premises in Delhi.

Given that they don’t have access to any other reasonably acceptable commercial accommodations, they genuinely need the subject premises for their children. With the consent of the owners, who obtained the right to live by virtue of a will dated 11.03.1974, the first and upper floors of the property are being used as a godown. Previously, they were using them for residential purposes, but they later moved to a residential area in Sainik Farms, Delhi.

They own two rooms and a veranda on the third story of the Chawri Bazar property, but they are unable to be used as a shop. They need the relevant premises for their daughter Sanjana to get a degree in Fine Arts so that she can launch her own wedding card design business, and for their sons Shantanu and Toran to operate their card and stationery business. They were also launching eviction cases against the tenants of the shops next to the subject premises because the subject premises would only partially satisfy their requirements.

Later, stores were cut out of the property’s ground floor, and the municipal authorities gave each store a unique number so that they could all be a part of the bigger structure. The Will dated 11.03.1974 of their grandmother, which was also probated, gave the present respondents ownership of the entire larger land in Chawri Bazar as well as in Chhota Chhipiwara Khurd, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. In order to use the subject premises for their children’s legitimate economic needs, the petitioner now residing there may be forced to vacate.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

The petitioner argued against the contested eviction decision on the grounds that the current respondents had hidden all relevant information about the property they owned and could have used for their children’s business. The petitioner/tenant’s learned counsel argued that the condition put forward by the respondents/landlords needs to be rejected as lacking validity because they disguised the entire area, including measures and the number of shops on each of their properties together with the tenants’ personal information. The argument was that the landlords/respondents had misrepresented the shops that were offered as godowns, hence their argument to that effect had to be denied.

The learned counsel representing the petitioner/tenant relied on the ruling of a coordinate bench of this court in the Khem Chand vs. Arjun Jain, 2013 IX AD (Delhi) 89 case. They argued that the suitability and reasonableness of the alternate accommodation is a factual matter that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than as a general rule that the landlord is the best judge.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

The contested eviction decision was backed by knowledgeable lawyers for the landlords/respondents, who argued that the current petition had any validity at all. The knowledgeable attorney representing the respondents/landlords guided me through opposing pleadings and supporting documentation to bolster his contention that the petitioner/tenant’s allegation of concealments is wholly untrue given that the respondents/landlords had explicitly revealed and elucidated every piece of property they owned.

On behalf of the respondents/landlords, it was contended that not even the subject premises’ site plan was contested during cross-examination because it had been properly proven in evidence. The learned counsel representing the respondents/landlords cited the ruling of this court’s coordination bench in Mohd. Saleem v. Zaheer Ahmad, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1469, as evidence for his claims.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court held that there should be exercise caution not to engage in a roving investigation that would transform the authority of superintendence into that of a regular first appeal, which is expressly prohibited by the legislature, while reviewing the Rent Controller’s records to ensure that the contested order was issued legitimately.

Unless the factual findings recorded by the Rent Controller were so irrational that no Rent Controller would have recorded the same on the material available, it is not permissible for the High Court in such proceedings to reach a different conclusion.

The court reviewed the record with consideration for the previously specified restricted parameters of this court’s particular jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B of the Act. From the information above, it is clear that the parties do not dispute the existence of a legal relationship of tenancy or the respondents’/landlords’ ownership of the relevant premises.

The challenge to the validity of the requirement established in light of the alternative accommodations offered by the respondents/landlords is centre to the current issue. All of the respondents’ children lack the necessary skills or inclination to operate a paper business, the current petitioner further claimed in their pleadings.

During the court proceedings, as previously said, the primary focus of the petitioner’s/tenant’s knowledgeable legal representation was to reveal the extent to which the respondents/landlords had obscured the availability of alternative accommodations.

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora.

Click to view judgment.

1 2 3 … 5