Dismissed¶27

Chandra Kanta Bihani and Anr. v. Neha Bihani and Anr.

Delhi HC8 Aug 2025LPA/513/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court LPA dismissed; challenge to Single Judge's interim equitable direction re-inducting widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild into home during pendency of appellate proceedings against senior-citizens' eviction order by District Magistrate; Appellate Authority (Divisional Commissioner) stay application dismissed; no findings on merits recorded by Single Judge; equity and homelessness of widow and child; Article 226 findings-of-fact argument rejected as unfounded; appellate proceedings to conclude within three months; no costs; respondents unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any, with no costs. ¶27

Chandra Kanta Bihani and Anr. Vs Neha Bihani and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any, with no costs.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge warrants interference in this letters patent appeal. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order recorded no findings and conducted no examination on merits; it was confined to an equitable interim direction that respondent no.1 (widow of the appellants' only son) and the grandchild be re-inducted into the home during the pendency of appellate proceedings, which were directed to be concluded within three months.

¶6

Key takeaways

In view of the absence of merits examination and the equitable interim nature of the re-induction direction, the impugned order does not warrant interference.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed LPA 513/2025 challenging the order dated 30.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge, by which W.P.(C) No.9548/2025 was allowed, the Appellate Authority's order dated 18.06.2025 (dismissing respondent no.1's application for interim protection/stay against the District Magistrate's eviction order dated 21.04.2025) was stayed, and respondent no.1 — widow of the appellants' only son — and her grandchild were directed to be re-inducted into the home during pendency of appellate proceedings, which were to be concluded within three months. The Bench held that the Single Judge committed no error: the impugned order contained no recording of findings or examination on merits and was animated solely by equity, to ensure that the widow and the grandchild were not rendered homeless and penurious during the pendency of the appellate proceedings. The appellants' contention that findings of torture and harassment of the senior-citizen appellants had been overlooked, and that such findings of fact were not amenable to examination under Article 226, did not persuade the Bench since no merits findings existed in the impugned order. Appeal dismissed alongwith pending applications; no costs.

¶1

$~39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 513/2025

¶4

CHANDRA KANTA BIHANI AND ANR. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Moni Cinmoy, Mr. Rahul Ranjan Verma, Mr. Saurabh Sharma and Mr. Akshat Sinha, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

NEHA BIHANI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: None

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 08.08.2025

¶12

C.M. NO. 48920/ 2025

¶13

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The application stands disposed of.

¶15

LPA 513/2025 & C.M. NO. 48919/ 2025, C.M. NO. 48921/ 2025

¶16

Present letters patent appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 30.07.2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’ ) passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the underlying writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.9548/2025 titled ‘Neha Bihani vs. Chandra Kanta Bihani & Ors.’ , was allowed staying the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority (Divisional Commissioner), Department of Revenue, Government of NCT of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Authority’ ) whereby the respondent no.1’s application seeking interim protection/stay against the eviction order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, District North-West (Kanjhawala), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘DM’ ) was dismissed. The appellant is also aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge to

¶17

LPA 513/2025 Page 1 of 3

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 12:05:55

¶20

re-induct the respondent no.1 and the grandchild in the home during pendency of appellate proceedings.

¶21

The only grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the allegation that the respondent no.1 has been harassing, tormenting and behaving cruelly with the appellants who are senior citizens in the evening of their lives. He stoutly argues that despite a number of opportunities having been granted to the respondent no.1, she chose not to appear before the DM and once an adverse order was passed, the respondent no.1 filed a statutory appeal alongwith an application for stay, which did not find favour with the Appellate Authority. He emphasises that the DM as well as the Appellate Authority have succinctly recorded the actual acts of torture, harassment and torment suffered by the appellants at the hands of the respondent no.1, which are findings of facts and cannot be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He also states that the respondent no.1 failed to satisfy the test of a stay sought against the order of the DM in the Appellate Proceedings and therefore, not entitled to be re-inducted atleast till the Appellate Authority concludes otherwise or takes a view contrary to the order of the DM.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error. 6. A plain perusal and reading of the impugned order only reflects that the Court was anxious to ensure that equity does not suffer and that the respondent no.1, who is the widow of the only son of the appellant and the grandchild are not rendered homeless and in a penurious situation. That too, only during the pendency of the Appellate proceedings. Clearly, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the case has been examined on merits or that some findings qua the same have been rendered by the learned Single Judge, is completely unfounded. We do not find any recording of findings or examination on merits at all. All that the learned single Judge has directed is

¶23

LPA 513/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶24

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 12:05:55

¶25

re-induction of the respondent no.1 and the grandchild of the appellant into the home during the pendency of Appellate proceedings and has further directed that the said proceedings be concluded within three months.

¶26

Having regard to the fact that no findings have been recorded nor merits examined, coupled with the equitable direction of re-induction of the respondent no.1 and the grandchild during pendency of Appellate proceedings, we are of the opinion that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

¶27

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. No costs.

¶28

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

¶29

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶30

AUGUST 8, 2025/ rl

¶31

LPA 513/2025

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 12:05:55

Chandra Kanta Bihani and Anr. v. Neha Bihani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Kanta Bihani and Anr. v. Neha Bihani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muskan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Save India Foundation (Regd.) Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Ors.

Gurgaon Gramin Bank Workers Organization through Chief Coordinator & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Owner Builder through Sadiq Khan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Hmm Altis Jv Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mkss Infra Engicon Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways Infrastructure and Development Corporation and Ors.