While dismissing a review petition filed by the tenants, the Delhi High Court has held that a compromise cannot bar the landlords from filing an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The High Court also reiterated that a contract barring a legal remedy is void under Section 28 read with Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The High Court was considering a review petition filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court had earlier disposed of the revision petition, upholding the impugned order of the CCJ-cum-ARC in an eviction petition and observing that the respondent landlord would be entitled to obtain eviction of the petitioners in execution proceedings.

The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held, “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. Besides, in any case, the predecessors-in interest of the respondents could not have conceded that neither he, nor the other landlord, nor any of the dependent family members would ever have any bona-fidé requirements, since a bona-fidé requirement can arise at any subsequent time in the future.”

Advocate Trilok Nath Saxena represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Zeeshan Ahmed represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioners that by way of a compromise arrived at between the parties in an earlier eviction petition before the Rent Controller, the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents (landlords) had agreed that they would not file any petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) against the petitioners. As per the Petitioner, the compromise unequivocally amounted to waiver by the landlords of the rights conferred upon them by the DRC Act. Relying on Section 14 of the DRC Act, the review petitioners asserted that once, by contractual arrangement, the landlords waived their entitlements under Section 14, such waiver was valid, lawful, and enforceable.

Reasoning

The Bench found the contentions of the Petitioners to be misconceived and untenable on the ground that the compromise could not bar the respondents from filing an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The Bench was of the view that the Rent Controller had correctly observed that an eviction petitioner does not have to prove ‘title’ to a property to seek eviction. “All that an eviction petitioner needs to prove, is that he has a right to the property that is superior to that of a tenant”, it added.

As per the Bench, 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 title change, did not arise in the eviction proceedings. “Moreover, the learned Rent Controller has also correctly noticed the fact that the review petitioners had paid rent for the subject premises to the father of the respondents, thereby acknowledging him as their landlord; and the review petitioners were therefore estopped from challenging the landlordship of the predecessors-in-interest, and consequently of the respondents, in view of the bar contained in section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”, it noted.

The Bench further held that the Rent Controller had duly considered and correctly evaluated the bona-fidé requirement of the respondents in relation to the subject premises. Thus, the Bench dismissed the petition with costs of Rs 50,000 payable by the petitioners.

Cause Title: Mohd Yahya v. Farat Ara (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10097)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Trilok Nath Saxena, Shiv Kumar Tiwari

Respondent: Advocate Zeeshan Ahmed

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Anup Jairam Bhambani

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.