New Delhi
The Delhi High Court has upheld an eviction order issued by the Rent Controller, emphasizing that an individual’s disability should not deprive them of their constitutional right to engage in a profession, trade, or business. Justice Sachin Datta dismissed a plea filed by two tenants challenging an eviction order issued by the Rent Controller in favor of the landlord regarding a tenanted shop. The eviction request was filed by the original landlord, who claimed that the shop was genuinely needed by her visually impaired son, Sushil Kumar, who was dependent on her for his business. The tenants argued that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act applied only to residential properties and not to commercial premises. They also questioned the legitimacy of the landlord’s claim, stating that Kumar’s visual impairment rendered him incapable of independently running a business. The court clarified that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act applied to both residential and commercial properties. It also found no merit in the tenants’ assertion that Kumar was unable to run a business due to his impaired vision, as he was reported to be managing multiple businesses from different shops. Justice Datta strongly disapproved of this argument, stating that it undermined constitutional principles and should be rejected outright. Consequently, the court upheld the eviction order issued by the Rent Controller, concluding that there was no valid reason to interfere with it.
