Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Hasa Nand and Co. vs. Trilok Chand Goenka

Rent Control Revision · 2026:DHC:7408Decided 1 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
RC.REV. 245/2026CNR: DLHC010328722026
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Background

A shop owner sought to evict a tenant from a small "almirah" (cupboard-sized) shop in Fatehpuri, Delhi, so he could demolish it to create a passage to his adjoining, oddly-shaped shop that was otherwise hard to access. The tenant missed the deadline to apply for permission to contest the case, and the Rent Controller also refused to excuse (condone) that delay. The tenant did not challenge the delay ruling itself, but argued the Rent Controller was still legally required to independently check whether the landlord's stated need was genuine before ordering eviction.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court agreed that such independent scrutiny is required even when a tenant defaults, but found, after reviewing the Rent Controller's order, that this check had, in fact, been properly done. The Rent Controller had considered the landlord's ownership documents, his existing narrow shop, and his stated reason (needing the passage) before concluding the requirement was genuine. Since a High Court reviewing such matters cannot simply substitute its own view for the Rent Controller's reasonable one, the eviction order was upheld.

Lesson Learnt

Even if a tenant misses the deadline to formally contest an eviction case, the law still requires the Rent Controller to satisfy itself that the landlord's need is genuine before ordering eviction, but once that check is properly done and reasoned, a higher court will not casually second-guess it.

Hasa Nand and Co. vs. Trilok Chand Goenka – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware