Kamal Kishore Gupta & Ors. v. Ajay Jethi
Case brief
What is this about?
This revision petition challenged an Additional Rent Controller's order granting leave to contest an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e). The High Court held the order was passed cursory, lacked record of petitioner's submissions, recorded insufficient reasons, and failed to apply the correct test for triable issues. The order was set aside and remanded.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order granting leave to defend is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court to dispose of the application for leave to defend within four months.
What the court decided
$~A-8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- RC.REV. 305/2016
KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Anuj Gupta and Ms.Pinki Aggarwal, Advocates with petitioner No.3 in person
versus AJAY JETHI ..... Respondent Through Mr.Rajeev Singh Chauhan, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
O R D E R
%
10.11.2016
- The present revision petition is filed seeking to impugn the order dated 28.01.2016 by which the application filed by the respondent/tenant under Section 25-B of the DRC for leave to contest was allowed.
- The petitioner/landlord has filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the DRC Act. The respondent being served with summons of the eviction petition filed an application for leave to appear and contest the eviction petition along with an affidavit. 3. The ARC by the impugned order has noted the contentions of the respondent/tenant. Having noted the said contentions, the order concludes that the respondent is able to raise triable issues regarding the availability of the sufficient accommodation with the petitioners and also about the bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the petitioner. Hence, the order concludes that triable issues have arisen between the parties.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional Rent Controller passed the order allowing leave to contest in a cursory manner without recording submissions of the petitioner.
Whether the Controller discharged the duty of sifting and examining facts to determine if triable issues exist regarding bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e).
Whether the impugned order suffers from infirmity due to failure to record cogent reasons for granting leave to defend.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Kamal Kishore Gupta & Ors.
- respondent
Ajay Jethi
Coram
Jayant Nath
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court