Single judge dismissed the revision petition seeking to set aside an order granting leave to defend. The court directed the Additional Rent Controller to dispose of the eviction petition positively by a specific date.
The petitions were disposed of with a direction to the ARC to decide the eviction petitions positively on or before 30th September, 2018.
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.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA
5;
A perusal of the impugned order shows the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) to have granted leave to the respondents to defend the petitions for eviction under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed by the petitioner on the grounds of letting out by the petitioner of the big hall on the ground floor of the property vide lease deed dated December, 2008 inspite of the petitioner at that time also carrying on the same business of real estate, for fulfilling the requirement wherefor eviction of the respondents has been sought; (ii) there being some ambiguity about the portion let out vide lease deed dated1st December, 2008 i.e. whether it included the mezzanine also; (iii) by expressing a doubt with respect to the partition claimed by the petitioner amongst himself, his mother and father and on the basis whereof other portions of the property were stated to be not available to the petitioner; (iv) the availability of the basement to the petitioner; (v) it being required to be determined by examining the state of mind of the petitioner whether the petitioner, required the premises in the tenancy of the respondents.
It is thus not as if the ARC has granted leave to defend only on one ground as was contended on21d August, 2017. The Trial Court has given several grounds.
The counsel for the petitioner has by taking me through the documents sought to find faults with each of the aforesaid reasons given by the Trial Court.
However having considered the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order save for making the disposal of the petitions for eviction time RC.REV. 354/2017& RC.REV. 355/20/7 Page2of3
bound. In view thereof, reasons for declining the relief of setting aside of the impugned orders are not being given.
No costs.
ENDLAW, J.
OCTOBER 11, 2017 bs..
RC.REV. 354/2017& RC.REV. 355/2017
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Court can interfere with the Additional Rent Controller's grant of leave to defend the eviction petition on specific grounds?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondents
ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
