A Rent Control Revision Petition impugning an eviction order based on non-payment of rent was dismissed. The High Court noted that revision jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) applies only to eviction on personal grounds, not non-payment of rent, and found no merits to interfere under Article 227 as findings were based on clear admissions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~35
RAKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Nisha Narayanan & Mr. Shariq Iqbal, Advs.
Versus
DHARMENDER KUMAR SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RC.REV. 292/2016
Page 1 of 5
RC.REV. 292/2016
Page 2 of 5
RC.REV. 292/2016
Page 3 of 5
had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent; ii) that in the light of the said admission in another proceeding, the stand taken in the written statement to the petition for eviction that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant could not be accepted; iii) that the only explanation of the petitioner / tenant was that the written statement in the other proceedings admitting being a tenant under the respondent at a rent of Rs.2,000/- per month was got fraudulently signed from the petitioner by his then advocate who was in collusion with the respondent and a complaint had been filed by the petitioner against the said advocate; iv) that however the said complaint had not been filed on record inspite of repeated opportunities and being asked to do so; v) that even otherwise, the plea of the earlier advocate and having got the written statement signed fraudulently was vague; vi) thus there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioner; vii) that it was not the case of the petitioner that the rent claimed to be in arrears had been paid; vii) that the petitioner had also admitted the receipt of the notice of demand of rent preceding the petition for eviction; and, viii) thus a case under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act on admissions was made out.
RC.REV. 292/2016
Page 4 of 5
the ARC had thus rightly come to the conclusion that there was an admission on the part of the petitioner of relationship of landlord and tenant; and, v) that thus no merit was found in the appeal.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
OCTOBER 09, 2017/ ‘gsr’..
RC.REV. 292/2016
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Rent Control Revision Petition lies under Section 25B(8) against an eviction order based on non-payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a).
Whether interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is warranted given the tenant's failure to deposit arrears requested under Section 14(2).
4 provisions across 2 enactments
RAKESH KUMAR
DHARMENDER KUMAR SHARMA
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
