The Delhi High Court has observed that an advocate using a chamber merely as an associate of the original allottee does not acquire any vested right over the said premises being “mere permissive user.”

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was dealing with a plea filed by lawyer Anju Tanwar challenging the decision of Chamber Allotment Committee (CAC) of Saket Courts directing her to vacate the chamber premises.

The Court noted that the chamber was allotted in the name of two lawyers and that Tanwar was allowed to use it as an associate of one of the advocates.

Justice Kaurav said that the CAC rightly concluded that Tanwar was merely a permissive user of the Chamber that in absence of there being any policy or rule or regulation entitling her, there is no vested right in her favour to use the said premises.

“The Court is unable to interfere with the decision taken by the CAC,” the Court said.

Regarding Tanwar's contention that she had paid certain amounts to the original allottees, the Court said that if she so desires, she may undertake an appropriate remedies for recovery of the said amount or damages.

The Court observed that the said aspect cannot be looked into by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

“Even otherwise, it be noted that the original allottees were not empowered to sub-let the Chamber,” the Court said.

Regarding the prayer to cancel the allotment, Justice Kaurav said that it is on the CAC to look into the said grievance and if the Committee finds that the original allottees violated any of the applicable terms and conditions, then the necessary consequences shall follow.

Title: ANJU TANWAR v. LAWYERS CHAMBERS ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE & ORS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 335

Click here to read order