A revision petition challenging the rejection of leave to contest an eviction order. The court dismissed the petition, finding the landlord's claim of bona fide need for residential possession well-founded and the tenant's opposition frivolous.
The eviction order and the refusal of leave to contest are upheld; the revision petition is dismissed.
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.
$~9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
versus
PROF (Dr.) A.K SALUJA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, Advocate with respondent in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Page 1 of 5
RC. Rev. 177/2017
purposes of running a dental clinic and for their dental equipment manufacturing company established in 2006-07. The original owner Shri Chaman Lal Saluja passed away on 19.11.1981 and upon the other legal heirs relinquishing their shares, right, title and interest in the property, it devolved on the respondent, the petitioner also having attorned in his favour accordingly. Thus, the fact that the respondent is the landlord-cum-owner qua the petitioner in the subject premises is not in question.
Page 2 of 5
RC. Rev. 177/2017
after securing reply from the respondent. By the impugned order dated 08.03.2017, the Additional Rent Controller found no triable issue having been raised and, thus, rejected the prayer for leave to contest and in the consequence granted eviction order, though extending the protection of Section 14 (7) of the Act by deferring the execution of the eviction order for a period of six months.
Page 3 of 5
RC. Rev. 177/2017
The restrictions against user of ground floor portion have no bearing on the purpose of letting of upper floor.
Page 4 of 5
RC. Rev. 177/2017
them of the rigor of climbing the stairs upto the second floor. During the course of hearing before the rent controller, as also before this court, the tenant tried to join issue by referring to the number of stairs which one has to climb from ground floor upto the first floor and then from first floor upto the second floor. This approach is not fair. Even if the difficulties faced in climbing stairs can be reduced upto the level of one floor, the landlord deserves the comfort he chooses within his own property.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 08, 2018 vk
Page 5 of 5
RC. Rev. 177/2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the landlord has a bona fide need for residential possession under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Whether triable issues exist to examine the sufficiency of the landlord's alternative accommodation.
Whether the tenant's plea regarding the landlord's family members living elsewhere raises any serious question for consideration.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S LYCA FINANCE LTD
PROF (Dr.) A.K SALUJA
R.K. Gauba
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
