Supreme Court stays order evicting GMR CMD from Pushpanjali Farms residence

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the order of Delhi High Court evicting Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) and GMR Group entities from a sprawling farmhouse at Pushpanjali Farms, which was being used as the residence of GMR's Chairman and Managing Director (CMD). .A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria passed the stay order."Issue notice. Stay. List on October 29," the Court said..Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL), contended that the case was not fit for a summary judgment by the High Court and there were at least seven triable issues. They further argued that the application before High Court for summary judgment was filed during the arguments for interim injunction. .Senior Advocates PS Patwalia and C Aryama Sundaram objected to the same and contended that after the change in ownership, the new landlord would like to reside in the property. .The farmhouse named Bijwasan includes a 30,000 square feet dwelling, an outhouse, lawns and a swimming pool. Of the total 3.81 acres, 2.45 acres containing the main building were leased to DIAL and its affiliates at a monthly rent initially fixed at ₹39.67 lakh plus GST, later revised to about ₹45.62 lakh. The lease had been executed with the former owner, Indus Sor Urja, and three GMR companies were named as lessees, with a fourth affiliate later paying rent.Following the sale of the property to Onkar Infotech, DIAL acknowledged the transfer, updated its security deposit of ₹2.72 crore, and sought bank details for rent payment. Onkar, however, took the position that the lease deed was void for want of registration and that the occupants were only month-to-month tenants. In July 2024, it issued a termination notice and refused to accept further rent payments..The GMR companies argued that the land was agricultural and subject to the Delhi Land Reforms Act (DLR Act), which excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in eviction matters. They also claimed that communications existed extending the lease until 2028 and questioned Onkar’s status as “bhumidhar” in revenue records.The High Court rejected these defences, holding that an unregistered lease cannot be relied upon to establish tenancy duration or extensions. It further held that the DLR Act did not apply since the farmhouse was being used exclusively for residential and non-agricultural purposes. The High Court concluded that the defendants had no valid defence and that a trial was unnecessary, also dismissing their application for rejection of the plaint.This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.