Quick Summary: The Delhi High Court dismissed a request by tenants Mohd Yahya & Ors, who challenged an eviction order by Farat Ara & Ors. The tenants had occupied the property since the 1940s. The court upheld the eviction, stating the landlords genuinely needed the space.
Mohd Yahya and his family had been renting a shop in a busy Delhi market since the 1940s, paying a rent of Rs. 2178 per month. The landlords, Farat Ara & Ors, wanted them to leave because they needed the property for themselves.
The tenants filed a request to reconsider an order from August 2025, which supported an eviction decision from 2018. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani handled the case. Mohd Yahya and his family argued that a previous agreement in 2008 should prevent the eviction.
"It is argued that the judge made a mistake by not considering the binding nature of the agreement."
In 2008, an agreement was reached where Farat Ara & Ors agreed not to ask for eviction under certain conditions. Mohd Yahya and his family claimed this agreement was binding and should protect them from eviction.
The court disagreed, stating that an agreement stopping legal actions is not valid under the Indian Contract Act. The judge noted that genuine needs can arise at any time, making the agreement not binding.
"An agreement stopping a legal action is not valid... regardless of any payment that may have been received for such an agreement."
Mohd Yahya and his family also argued that the property, being Waqf, could not be divided, which they claimed affected the eviction case. However, the court found that dividing the property did not change its nature and was not relevant to the eviction.
The court found no mistakes in the previous decisions and dismissed the request to reconsider. Mohd Yahya and his family were ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 to a charity, Friendicoes SECA, within four weeks.
"The current request is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- payable by the tenants."
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani decided that the landlords' genuine need for the property was more important than the long-standing occupancy and previous agreements. Mohd Yahya and his family's arguments were not enough to stop the eviction.
