Live
- From ‘Mohabbat ki Dukan’ to ‘Jhoot ki Dukan’: Shift In Rahul’s Rhetoric
- Revenue officials resume Sarada peetham land
- A celebration of diversity, unity through culture
- Need of the hour: A strong climate financial architecture
- Grenade attack: Ultras arrested
- Veteran BJP leader: Advani turns 97
- SC dismisses PIL seeking CBI probe into Tirupati laddus row
- New bench to decide AMU minority status: SC
- No power can restore Article 370 in J&K: Modi
- India deserves to be on list of global superpowers: Putin
Disability doesn’t deprive people of practising any profession, business: Delhi HC
Upholding an eviction order issued by the Rent Controller, the Delhi High Court has said that an individual's disability should not deprive them of their constitutional right to engage in a profession, trade or business.
New Delhi: Upholding an eviction order issued by the Rent Controller, the Delhi High Court has said 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 favour 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 son, Sushil Kumar, who was dependent on her for his business.
The tenants contested the order, arguing that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act applied only to residential properties and not to commercial premises.
They also argued that Kumar's visual impairment rendered him incapable of independently running a business, thus challenging the legitimacy of the landlord's claim.
The court, however, clarified that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act applied to both residential and commercial properties.
Furthermore, it found no merit in the tenants' assertion that Kumar was unable to run a business due to impaired vision, as he was reported to be managing multiple businesses from different shops.
Justice Datta expressed strong disapproval of this argument, stating that it not only contradicted the claim that Kumar was operating multiple businesses but also ran counter to the principles of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
He said that this submission undermined constitutional principles and should be rejected outright.
Hence, the court upheld the eviction order issued by the Rent Controller, concluding that there was no valid reason to interfere with it.
“In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the impugned eviction order does not merit any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B (8) of the DRC Act. As such, no merit is found in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed,” the court said.
