Chander Prakash v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JULY 22, 2026/tk/dj

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 22.07.2026 + W.P.(C) 4304/2019 & CM APPL. 19154/2019 (Stay) CHANDER PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pushkar Sood and Ms. Chandni Jaiswal, Advocates. versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankur Goel, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (Oral) 1. The present Petition, filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 19501, seeks to challenge the Judgment dated 05.12.20182 passed in case, being PPA 19/2017, titled "Chander Prakash v. Life Insurance Corporation of India" by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi3 and the Order dated 27.03.20174 passed by the learned Estate Officer in case bearing No. 03(A) of 2016, titled "Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Chander Prakash" as well as the calculations dated 31.01.20195 submitted by the learned Estate Officer in furtherance of Judgment dated 05.12.2018. 1 Constitution 2 Impugned Judgment 3 learned ADJ 4 Eviction Order 5 Arrears Calculation 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner fairly submits that he is not pressing the challenge with respect to the alleged non-service of notice. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, however, confines his challenge to two aspects. Firstly, he assails the levy of water charges by contending that the water and toilet facilities were common to all occupants of the premises and, in the absence of any pleadings or material demonstrating exclusive use thereof by the Petitioner, no liability towards payment of such charges could have been fastened upon him. Secondly, he contends that no fresh lease deed came to be executed by the Respondent in favour of the Petitioner. 4. Elaborating upon the latter submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that, in the absence of the execution of a fresh lease deed, the Petitioner could not have been held liable to pay rent at the revised rate, as contended by the Respondent. Learned counsel submits that the liability of the Petitioner remained confined to payment of rent at the earlier rate of ₹2,090/- per month. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he reiterates the contentions urged before the learned ADJ as well as the learned Estate Officer. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent supports the Impugned Judgement and submits that the scope of interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is extremely limited and supervisory in nature. He submits that this Court cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction or undertake a reappreciation of the evidence merely because another view may be possible. 6. Learned counsel for the for the Respondent further submits that the issues sought to be urged by the Petitioner have already been considered by both the learned Estate Officer and the learned ADJ, who have concurrently returned findings against the Petitioner. Accordingly, it is contended that no ground is made out for interference with the Impugned Judgement. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the material placed on record. 8. At the outset, this Court takes note of the fact that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has fairly stated that he is not pressing the challenge with respect to the alleged non-service of notice. 9. Consequently, the challenge in the present Petition stands confined to two issues, firstly, with respect to the levy of water charge and secondly, with respect to the liability of the Petitioner to pay rent at the revised rate notwithstanding the non-execution of a formal lease deed. 10. A perusal of the Eviction Order passed by the learned Estate Officer demonstrates that both the aforesaid issues received elaborate consideration. 11. Insofar as the issue relating to the revised rent is co