1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by long-term tenants challenging its earlier order upholding an eviction decree passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act). The Court held that:
- A 2008 compromise—through which the landlords had allegedly agreed never to file a Section 14(1)(e) eviction petition—is void under Sections 23 and 28 of the Indian Contract Act because parties cannot contractually waive or extinguish statutory remedies.
- The Waqf property status and the 2016 Deed appointing landlord-predecessors as Muttawalis did not amount to illegal partition, nor did it prevent the landlords from seeking eviction.
- The bona fide requirement and absence of suitable alternate accommodation were already correctly and thoroughly assessed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Court earlier.
Finding no “error apparent on the face of the record,” the Court dismissed the review petition with ₹50,000 costs, payable to Friendicoes SECA.
2. Facts
The tenants have occupied a shop in one of Delhi’s busiest wholesale markets since the 1940s, paying rent that rose over decades to ₹2,178 per month.
In 2008, during earlier eviction proceedings, the parties executed a compromise, raising the rent from ₹38 to ₹1,800 per month, and the tenants claim the landlords agreed not to file future petitions under Section 14(1)(e).
In 2018, the landlord family (descendants of original lessors and Muttawalis of the Waqf property) again filed an eviction petition claiming bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller allowed eviction.
In August 2025, the High Court dismissed the tenants’ revision petition.
The tenants then filed the present review petition, arguing:
• the 2008 compromise barred the eviction;
• the property, being Waqf, could not be partitioned through a 2016 deed;
• several alternate shops existed; and
• the Court failed to test the Rent Controller’s findings in light of Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam (1971).
3. Issues
- Can a compromise agreement validly waive the landlord’s statutory right to file a future eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e)?
- Whether the 2016 family arrangement concerning Waqf property invalidates the eviction proceedings.
- Whether the alleged availability of other vacant shops required re-grant of leave to defend.
- Whether the Court’s earlier order contained an error warranting review.
4. Petitioners’ arguments
The tenants argued that the 2008 compromise was binding and amounted to a lawful waiver of the landlord’s eviction rights, especially since enhanced rent was paid in exchange for that promise. They relied on Lachoo Mal, asserting that statutory rights may be waived if beneficial to a specific class.
They further argued that the 2016 deed “partitioned” a Waqf property, which is impermissible because the character of Waqf property is perpetual. Citing Chhedi Lal Misra v. Civil Judge, Lucknow (2007), they contended the eviction petitioners lacked authority to seek eviction.
They also argued that the Rent Controller failed to assess alternate accommodations, and therefore leave to defend should have been granted.
5. Respondents’ arguments
The landlords argued:
• The 2008 compromise is void because parties cannot agree to permanently surrender statutory remedies.
• Claims of waiver are hit by Sections 28 and 23 of the Contract Act.
• Their status as Muttawalis empowered them to manage, collect rent, and evict tenants; no “partition” of Waqf property occurred.
• Section 116 of the Evidence Act bars tenants from denying the landlord’s title after having paid rent.
• All issues raised had already been adjudicated—review was an abuse of process.
6. Analysis of the law
A. Waiver of eviction rights is void – Section 28 Contract Act
The Court reaffirmed that no contract can bar a statutory legal remedy. A landlord cannot agree that neither he nor his heirs nor any future Muttawalis will ever have a bona fide requirement.
The Court relied on A.V.M. Sales Corp. v. Anuradha Chemicals (2012) 2 SCC 315, which held that agreements restricting enforcement of statutory rights are void.
Thus, the compromise clause was legally unenforceable, regardless of consideration or rent enhancement.
B. Waqf property argument rejected
The petitioners’ reliance on Chhedi Lal Misra was misplaced.
The 2016 deed did not partition the Waqf property; it only allocated managerial responsibilities to Muttawalis, including the powers to:
• manage the property,
• receive rent,
• let out the property,
• and eject tenants.
This did not alter the essential Waqf character nor affect the eviction rights.
C. Tenant estoppel under Section 116 Evidence Act
The Court accepted the Rent Controller’s finding that the tenants paid rent to the landlord’s father.
Thus, they were estopped from challenging landlordship while simultaneously relying on it for tenancy continuity.
D. Bona fide requirement and alternate premises
The Court held that the Rent Controller’s analysis was correct—no “suitable” alternate premises were shown to exist. Even assuming other shops were vacant within the extended Waqf family, they were not legally available for the eviction petitioners to use.
E. Review jurisdiction is narrow
No “error apparent on the face of the record” existed.
A review cannot be used to re-argue or re-litigate issues already decided.
7. Precedent analysis
A.V.M. Sales Corp. v. Anuradha Chemicals (2012)
Held that agreements restraining legal proceedings or statutory rights are void. Applied directly to invalidate the 2008 compromise.
Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam (1971)
Held that certain statutory benefits can be waived if solely for individual protection. Distinguished: landlords cannot waive future statutory eviction rights for all successors.
Chhedi Lal Misra (2007)
Reaffirmed perpetual Waqf nature. Distinction: the 2016 deed did not alter Waqf character; only conferred management rights.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court’s reasoning rested on four pillars:
- Contractual waiver of eviction rights is void – such agreements bar legal remedies and violate public policy.
- Waqf character unchanged – the deed appointed Muttawalis; it did not partition the property.
- Estoppel applies – tenants cannot deny landlordship after paying rent.
- All issues previously examined – review is not an appeal; repetition of arguments cannot reopen adjudicated issues.
The Court also emphasized that the tenants had occupied the shop for 85 years, during which they had paid meagre rent while repeatedly litigating to stall eviction.
9. Conclusion
The review petition was dismissed.
The Court imposed ₹50,000 costs, noting misuse of review jurisdiction and prolonged obstruction of eviction.
10. Implications
This judgment clarifies that:
• A landlord’s statutory right to file an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) cannot be waived by private agreement.
• Waqf property can be managed by appointed Muttawalis without losing its character; such arrangements do not bar eviction.
• Tenants who have paid rent are estopped from disputing landlordship.
• Review jurisdiction is exceptionally narrow; it cannot reopen findings affirmed earlier.
• Courts will discourage misuse of litigation to delay eviction in decades-old tenancies.
Case Law References
A.V.M. Sales Corp. v. Anuradha Chemicals (2012) — Contract restraining legal remedy void.
Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam (1971) — Waiver of statutory benefits permissible only if not against public policy; distinguished.
Chhedi Lal Misra (2007) — Waqf character perpetual; used by tenants but held irrelevant in eviction context.
FAQs
1. Can a landlord validly promise never to file an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e)?
No. Such promises are void because statutory eviction rights cannot be contractually waived.
2. Does appointment of Muttawalis amount to partition of Waqf property?
No. Management rights do not alter the Waqf character, nor affect eviction rights.
3. When can a review petition be allowed in eviction matters?
Only when there is an error apparent on the record. Re-arguing previously decided issues is not permitted.
