Quick Summary: The High Court of Delhi supported an eviction order against Munna, also known as Manoj Kumar, a tenant in New Delhi. The tenant was accused of using a shop for storing dangerous items without permission. Justice Girish Kathpalia rejected Munna's appeal, siding with the landlord, Ram Narain.
On January 12, 2015, Munna faced an eviction order from the Additional Rent Control Tribunal. Ram Narain, the landlord, claimed Munna was using the shop in Village Madipur, New Delhi, to store dangerous materials like paints and chemicals. This was against the original agreement, which was for selling electrical goods.
Munna's lawyers argued that the eviction was unfair. They said there was no proof that the stored items were dangerous. They also mentioned that a notice from 1999 showed the shop was meant for hardware and paints, not just electrical goods. However, the court didn't consider this notice important.
Ram Narain's team pointed out that Munna had been warned in April 2007 to stop the misuse. They argued that the eviction was justified because the misuse was a public nuisance and potentially harmful.
Before the eviction order, a civil court had already ruled against Munna on October 13, 2013, stopping him from storing dangerous materials. This ruling was never challenged, making the landlord's case stronger.
Munna's appeal claimed that the eviction notice was served incorrectly, as it was received by his brother. However, the court found this argument weak, noting there was no evidence Munna didn't know about the notice.
Justice Girish Kathpalia concluded that both the Rent Controller and the Tribunal had made fair decisions. He noted that Munna's misuse of the property was clear and that the eviction process had been properly followed.
"Having scrutinized the material on record... I am unable to find any infirmity... so the same is upheld." - Justice Girish Kathpalia
With the petition dismissed on December 10, 2025, the court urged quick execution of the eviction order. Munna's decade-long legal battle ended with a clear message: misuse of rented property won't be tolerated. This case highlights the importance of sticking to rental agreements and the legal consequences of breaking them.
