Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

¶1

$~112

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5721/2026, CM APPL. 28141/2026

¶4

SIR SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PVT LTD .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shaunak Kashyap, Miss Mayanka Dhawan, Mr. Vikram Kalra, Ms. Ankita, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Akash Chatterjee, SPC, Ms. Shivani Sethi, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 28.04.2026

¶10

CM APPL. 28142/2026 (EXEMPTION)

¶11

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 5721/2026

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the possession with respect to the property in question is sought to be recovered pursuant to the directions passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4686 of 2026 titled Union of India vs. Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd.

¶15

The Court is of the prima facie opinion that by virtue of the

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 02/05/2026 at 12:46:01

¶18

application of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter ‘DRC Act’) , the possession of property in question was obtained by the petitioner. The applicability of the provisions of the DRC Act has been held to be inappropriate. The Supreme Court, thus, clarifies that in the instant case, the provisions of the DRC Act would have no application.

¶19

The petitioner seeks to enforce civil rights which are emanated from the lease in question i.e. 26.04.1945. The Court was of the prima facie opinion that for enforcement of such a right, the appropriate remedy would be to file a civil suit.

¶20

At this stage, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the writ petition with respect to the property which was the subject matter of the eviction proceedings under the provisions of the DRC Act, and to file appropriate civil proceedings.

¶21

With that liberty, the writ petition qua the subject matter of the property to which the possession was taken pursuant to eviction order under the DRC Act, stands dismissed as withdrawn.

¶22

All rights and contentions are left open.

¶23

At this stage, Mr. Sethi points out that so far as the Flat No. 64 and Garage Nos. 27C, 71F and 74G of Sujan Singh Park are concerned, this part of the property was not the subject matter of the eviction proceedings under the DRC Act.

¶24

Mr. Sethi, therefore, submits that the property which was the subject matter of the eviction proceedings cannot be taken over by the respondents under the guise of the Supreme Court’s directions.

¶25

The submission made by Mr Sethi seems to be reasonable and is

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 02/05/2026 at 12:46:01

¶28

aligned with the order dated 01.04.2022, where, this particular part of the property was not the subject matter of warrant of possession. What was the subject matter of warrant of possession, is extracted as under:

¶29

“ Warrants of possession received back with report that possession qua flat no. G-82 and Flat no. A-10, E-60, 1^st Floor and IInd Floor, J-II/82SF, J- II/79FF, J-III/63SF, J-III/64SF, J-lll/70Sf, JIII/72TF and garage B-19, C- 34, C-35, D-47, J-II/79-80, J-III/70/72, K-2, K-5 has been handed over to the DH. ”

¶30

Since there is no justification as to why this part of the property is sought to be evicted from the petitioner without following due process of law, this part of the order stands set aside.

¶31

The respondents, however, are granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law, with respect to any part of the property which may not have been the subject matter of the DRC Act.

¶32

For that purpose, the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶33

In view thereof, the petition stands disposed of.

¶34

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶35

APRIL 28, 2026 Aks/ss

¶36

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 02/05/2026 at 12:46:01

Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Play Limited Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

Deepak Kumar Jha Vs Uco Bank and Ors.

Soniya Vs Bsf through Its Director General and Ors.

Lawrence Bishnoi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr Divesh Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ns Trading Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

Ms Dermaclinix the Complete Skin and Hair Solution Center Vs Additional Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi East

Chander Mohan and Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Lawrence Bishnoi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ca Abraham Zachariah Vs Appellate Authority Icai and Ors.

Nupower Wind Farms Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Cpl Chetan Gautam Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Satya Prakash Ravidas Vs the Registrar of Societies & Anr.