In this rent control revision petition, the Delhi High Court dismissed the challenge to the Additional Rent Controller's order granting leave to defend an eviction petition, finding the Controller's reasons cogent and within the pleadings.
Revision petition dismissed with no costs.
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.
$~3.
NISAR AHMED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.H. Nizami and Mr. S.S. Nizami, Advs.
versus
AGYAPAL SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. P.K. Rawal, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Mr. Sachin Jain and Ms. Malika Bhatia, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R
% 17.08.2017
page 1 of 2
RC.REV. No.335/2016
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AUGUST 17, 2017 ‘pp’..
page 2 of 2
RC.REV. No.335/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Additional Rent Controller's discretion in granting leave to defend.
Whether the reasons provided by the Additional Rent Controller are within the pleadings.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
NISAR AHMED
AGYAPAL SINGH
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
