Allowed

Tarash Pal Jain v. the Buddhist Society of India

Delhi HC14 Dec 2015RC.REV./429/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge set aside eviction orders dated 11.3.2015 and 16.4.2014 as jurisdictional errors because eviction petitions were filed under Section 14(1)(e) while orders were passed under Section 22 of the DRC Act. Respondents were permitted to withdraw pending petitions with liberty to file fresh ones under permissible provisions.

What did the court decide?

Eviction orders dated 11.3.2015 and 16.4.2014 set aside. Petitions bearing E. Nos. 35/14, 37/14, 40/13, 34/14, and 36/14 withdrawn by landlord with liberty to file fresh petition under relevant DRC Ac

Tarash Pal Jain Vs the Buddhist Society of India — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2015)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared the digital data is as per the physical file

¶2

¶3

RC.REV. 427/2015 & C.M. No. 15221/2015

¶4

ASGHARALI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil KumarGupta,Mr. ZuberAhmad & Mr. Deeptanshu Jain, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF INDIA Respondent Through: Mr. ChetanShandilya& Mr. Priyanka Kapoor, Advocates.

¶7

AND

¶8

RC.REV. 428/2015 «& C.M. No. 15225/2015

¶9

SALEK CHAND JAIN Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta,Mr. ZuberAhmad & Mr. Deeptanshu Jain, Advocates.

¶10

versus

¶11

THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF INDIA Respondent Through: Mr. ChetanShandilya& Mr. Priyanka Kapoor, Advocates.

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

¶14

ORDER

¶15

% 14.12.2015

¶16

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it has been agreed that as there is a jurisdictionalerror in the orders of evictiondated 11.3.2015and 16.4.2014on accountof the factthat the petition was filed for eviction by the respondenton the ground of bonafide requirementunder Section 14 (1) (e) ofthe DRC Act while as the order of evictionhas been passedunder Section22 of the DRC Act and accordingly, the aforesaid orders be set aside and the

¶17

respondentbe permittedto withdrawthe petitions pending before the learned ARC with liberty to file a fresh petition under such relevant provision of the Rent ControlAct as maybe permissiblein law. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any objection.

¶18

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, the orders of eviction dated 11.3.2015 and 16.4.2014 passed by the learned ARC, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi are set aside and the respondent/landlordis permittedto withdrawthe petitionsfiled before the learnedARC bearingE. Nos.35/14,37/14,40/13, 34/14 and 36/14 titled The BuddhistSocietyof India v^. Trish Pal Jain, The Buddhist SocietyofIndia vs. Nasir Hussain, The BuddhistSocietyofIndia vs. Dhan Kuman Jain & Anr., The Buddhist Society of India vs. Asghar AH and The Buddhist Society of India vs. Salek Chand Jain respectivelywith^ liberty to the respondent/landlordto file a fresh petitionunder such provisionof the DRC Act as may be permissible in law.

¶19

Withthese observations,all the petitionsstanddisposedof.

¶20

¶21

V.K. SHALI, J.

¶22

DECEMBER 14, 2015 'AA' Lt

Tarash Pal Jain v. the Buddhist Society of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarash Pal Jain v. the Buddhist Society of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushila Devi Jain Vs Rajinder Kumar Gupta

Sushila Devi Jain Vs Adesh Kumar Gupta

Adarsh Kumar Puniyani Vs Lajwanti Piplani

Asghar Ali Vs the Buddhist Society of India

Salek Chand Jain Vs the Buddhist Society of India

Dhan Kumar Jain and Anr. Vs Buddhist Society of India