Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction for Misuse of Rented Premises

Tenant's Appeal Dismissed; High Court Confirms Limited Interference Scope Under Article 227

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia, upheld the eviction of a tenant for misusing rented premises, reinforcing the limited scope for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The judgment, delivered on December 10, 2025, involved petitioner Munna @ Manoj Kumar and respondent Ram Narain concerning the premises in Village Madipur, New Delhi.

The dispute began when the landlord, Ram Narain, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The landlord alleged that the tenant, initially renting the premises for selling electrical goods, altered its use to storing inflammable materials like paints and chemicals without consent, causing a public nuisance. Despite a notice dated April 11, 2007, the tenant did not cease the misuse, leading the Additional Rent Controller to pass an eviction order on December 20, 2012.

Munna @ Manoj Kumar appealed the eviction, which was dismissed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal in January 2015. The tenant then approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the appellate order. The tenant's counsel argued that the stored materials were not inflammable or dangerous and claimed prior consent for the change of use. However, these contentions were not sufficient to overturn the findings of the lower courts.

Justice Kathpalia emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227, which restricts interference to instances of gross illegality or perversity, not mere disagreement with facts. The court noted that both lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence and found no consent from the landlord for the changed use, nor cessation of misuse by the tenant.

The court further noted that a prior civil suit had decreed against the tenant's unauthorized use, reinforcing the landlord's claims. Additionally, the tenant's failure to respond adequately to the notice under Section 14(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act further justified the eviction.

The judgment highlights the stringent requirements for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, including the necessity of landlord consent for change of use and the implications of misuse as a public nuisance. This decision reaffirms the judiciary's stance on maintaining the sanctity of rental agreements and the limitations on appellate review under constitutional provisions.

Bottom Line:

Scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited, particularly when two courts below have concurred in their findings. High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227.

Statutory provision(s): Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Sections 14(1)(c) and 14(5); Article 227, Constitution of India

Munna @ Manoj Kumar v. Ram Narain, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2820001