Delhi High Court orders eviction of GMR CMD from Pushpanjali Farms residence

The Delhi High Court has ordered Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) and other GMR Group entities to vacate a sprawling farmhouse at Pushpanjali Farms, Bijwasan, which was being used as the residence of the company’s Chairman and Managing Director (CMD). [Onkar Infotech v. Delhi International Airport Limited]

The Court held that the lease deed relied upon by the companies was unregistered and unenforceable. Holding that they were month-to-month tenants, Justice Subramonium Prasad held,

"These facts establish that once the Defendants are month-to-month tenant, they are liable to be evicted on termination of the Lease Deed which has been terminated by giving the Notice..."

It thus decreed possession in favour of Onkar Infotech, which had purchased the property in May 2024 for ₹115 crore.

The dispute arose over the 3.81-acre estate comprising a 30,000 sq ft dwelling, lawns and an outhouse. Of this, 2.45 acres containing the main building block was leased in April 2020 to DIAL and its affiliates through an unregistered lease deed. Rent was fixed at ₹39.67 lakh plus GST per month, later revised to around ₹45.62 lakh. The farmhouse was intended to serve as the official residence of DIAL’s CMD, for which the defendants claimed to have invested heavily in amenities, including a swimming pool.

The lease was executed with the then-owner, Indus Sor Urja, and three GMR companies were recognised as lessees. A fourth affiliate later began paying rent on behalf of one lessee, though no formal substitution deed was executed.

On May 20, 2024, Indus Sor Urja sold the Pushpanjali Farms property to Onkar Infotech through a registered sale deed for ₹115 crore, paying around ₹9 crore in stamp duty and registration charges. DIAL acknowledged the transfer, sought bank details to remit rent to the new landlord and its security deposit of ₹2.72 crore was transferred to Onkar.

Onkar, however, asserted that the April 2020 lease deed was void under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act because it was unregistered. At best, the defendants were month-to-month tenants under Section 106 of the TP Act. On July 7, 2024, Onkar issued a 15-day termination notice. It later refused to accept post-dated cheques tendered by the defendants, insisting on vacant possession.

The GMR companies resisted eviction, arguing that the land was agricultural in nature and, therefore, governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLR Act), which bars civil suits for eviction. They also claimed there were communications extending the lease up to 2028, and accused Onkar of suppressing facts regarding its status as “bhumidhar” in revenue records. An application was filed for rejection of the plaint.

The Court first addressed the unregistered lease. Citing Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 107 TPA, and relying on Supreme Court precedents, it held the deed could not be relied upon to prove tenure or extensions. The judgment records:

“The lease being unregistered cannot be an evidence for ascertaining the time period of the lease. The Defendants were month-to-month tenants and the Lease Deed stood terminated vide Notice dated 07.07.2024.”

On the DLR Act objection, the Court emphasised the admitted residential use for the CMD, with non-agricultural development (dwelling, pool, lawns). It held that given the actual use, the DLR Act did not apply to the premises:

“The issue therefore is no longer res integra that once a land has been put to complete non-agricultural use, the provisions of the DLR Act are not applicable.”

The Court also noted that arguments about village-wide notifications (including Section 507 DMC Act and LDRA policy) could not alter the character and use of this identified parcel.

Summarising the effect of the parties’ correspondence and conduct post-sale, the Court recorded that the defendants had acknowledged Onkar as landlord and tendered rent; once the month-to-month tenancy was validly terminated, continued occupation was unlawful.

Given the legal bar on using an unregistered lease to establish term/extension and the inapplicability of the DLR Act to a parcel used purely as a residence, Justice Prasad concluded the defence had no real prospect of success and that a trial was unnecessary.

The defendants’ plea to reject the plaint was also rejected.

The plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocates PS Patwalia and Dayan Krishnan with Advocates Harpreet Singh, Karan Luthra, Shreedhar Kale, Yogesh Malik and Rohan Dua.

DIAL was represented by Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao with Advocates Amitabh Chaturvedi, Ankit Monga and Shourya Tomar.

Advocates Manu Krishnan, Tejasvi Chaudhry, Rajshree Jaiswal and Anirudh Bakhru l appeared for other defendants.

[Read Judgment]