Delhi High Court Transfers Accommodation Dispute After Lawyer’s Courtroom Conduct

Court transfers case following courtroom incident

The Delhi High Court directed that a pending petition concerning alternative accommodation under domestic violence proceedings be placed before another Bench after recording the conduct of a lawyer during the hearing. In an order dated November 3, 2026, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora characterised the advocate’s repeated statements and attempted departure from the courtroom as misconduct. The transfer was made to protect the dignity of the Court and the judicial process. The Court expressly preserved the interim directions already issued in the accommodation dispute.

How the accommodation dispute arose

The petition was brought by Arjun Dev Bhatia, a 91-year-old man, challenging an October 23 order of a Rohini court. That order permitted his daughter-in-law to enter a property in Pitampura as alternative accommodation after eviction proceedings concerning a rented flat. The petitioner described himself as the absolute owner of the house and said his son and daughter-in-law had lived separately from him for many years. Those assertions were presented through counsel; the High Court did not finally adjudicate the disputed ownership and residence claims in this interim order.

Rental arrangement considered by the Court

The record showed that the rented accommodation had carried monthly rent of Rs 27,500. The High Court asked whether the elderly petitioner would pay rent so that the daughter-in-law could remain in the existing accommodation or occupy a comparable flat. His senior counsel conveyed willingness to pay that monthly amount and to deposit six months of rent in advance. The daughter-in-law’s counsel, however, stated that she had vacated the rented premises and did not wish to return even if rent were provided. Another counsel disputed the assertion that the flat had been surrendered.

Dispute about possession and interim safeguards

The Court noted that the account of whether the landlord had received the keys changed during the hearing. Initially, counsel said the keys had been handed over; later, he stated they remained with the daughter-in-law. To prevent further uncertainty, the Court directed the landlord to maintain the existing position concerning possession and to appear for verification. It also ordered the petitioner to deposit an amount equivalent to six months of rent and directed his son to deposit any outstanding rental arrears, if payable, within two days. These were interim arrangements, not a final resolution of the domestic violence litigation.

What happened during the hearing

After the Court had dictated directions and while proceedings continued, the order records that advocate R K Tarun repeatedly said he was crying for his beloved justice system, waved his hands and began walking out. The Court called him back and expressed displeasure. Although the advocate apologised, the judge recorded that the apology did not appear genuine. The order described the conduct as reckless and reprehensible, observing that an advocate must maintain respect for legal process even when a direction does not favour the client.

Why the judge transferred the matter

The judge expressed concern that the advocate might subsequently encourage unfounded allegations against the judge or the justice system in an effort to justify the adverse directions. In those circumstances, the Court considered transfer to another Bench appropriate. Importantly, this was a judicial assessment of conduct in that hearing; the order does not itself record a separate disciplinary finding by a Bar Council or a final contempt conviction. The transfer also does not determine the merits of the daughter-in-law’s accommodation claim.

Practical significance for litigation

The development illustrates the distinction between forceful advocacy and behaviour that disrupts judicial proceedings. Counsel remain free to challenge orders through legally available remedies, including appeals or applications for modification, but courtroom disagreement does not displace professional duties of restraint and candour. The case also demonstrates how courts may preserve interim protective measures while directing that the underlying dispute be heard by another judge. The continuity of existing directions matters because changing the Bench should not automatically undo safeguards designed to maintain the position pending judicial examination.

Next steps and limits of the order

The November 3 order directed listing subject to the orders of the Judge-in-Charge on the criminal side. It required steps to verify possession of the rented flat and preserve the directions concerning deposits. Because the document is an interim procedural order, readers should not treat it as a ruling that either side ultimately owns or is entitled to occupy the contested property. Nor should the Court’s comments on counsel’s behaviour be confused with the outcome of the domestic violence case. Subsequent orders may clarify the present procedural position and the final accommodation arrangements.