Dismissed

Jagdish Prasad & Anr. v. Competent Authority & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2019W.P.(C)/1201/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in W.P.(C) 1201/2019 considered a petition impugning the rejection of an application to implead a co-owner in eviction proceedings under the Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act. The Court held the controversy regarding ownership and rent is beyond the scope of summary proceedings and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting impleadment application allowed; pending applications disposed of.

Jagdish Prasad & Anr. Vs Competent Authority & Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~26

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 1201/2019

¶4

JAGDISH PRASAD & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr Abhishek Shama and Mr Ajay Singh Tomar, Advocates.

¶5

versus COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr Parvinder Chauhan, Standing Counsel with Mr Nitin Jain, Advocate for DUSIB.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 06.02.2019

¶7

CM Nos.5438/2019 & 5439/2019

¶8

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶9

W.P.(C) 1201/2019 & CM Nos. 5437/2019 & 5440/2019

¶10

The petitioners have filed the present petition impugning an interim order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Competent Authority under the Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956. By the impugned order, the petitioners’ application for impleadment of one Mr P. K. Gupta as a necessary party has been rejected.

¶11

According to the petitioners, Shri P. K. Gupta is a co-owner of the premises being Shop No. 1026 Maliwara, Delhi – 6 (hereafter ‘the property’) and the petitioners were paying rent to the said person. They claim that respondent no.2 (Mr Sanjeev Jain) had got a Sale Deed executed by one of the co-owners of the property. He filed an application before the Competent Authority seeking permission to institute proceedings to evict the petitioners. He alleged that the petitioners had failed to pay rentals for

¶12

occupation of the property. The petitioners claim that they are not in default of payment of rent and they are regularly paying the same to Mr P. K. Gupta and, therefore, respondent no.2 could have no grievance against the petitioner.

¶13

It is also apparent from the above that the controversy sought to be raised by impleading Mr P. K. Gupta, since it relates to the status of respondent no.2 as the owner of the property and his entitlement to receive rent as such. Clearly, the said controversy is not within the scope of the proceedings instituted before the Competent Authority. The issue whether the petitioners have defaulted in payment of rent would necessarily have to be established by respondent no. 2 (Mr Sanjeev Jain) in appropriate proceedings. The scope of the proceedings under Section 19 of the Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 is restricted to examining the factors as are set out in Section 19(4) of the said Act.

¶14

It is seen that the Competent Authority had also rejected the petitioner’s application by holding that the proceedings under the Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 are summary in nature and that the Competent Authority had already heard the final arguments on behalf of the applicant and, therefore, allowing the petitioner’s application would necessarily delay the matter.

¶15

This Court finds no infirmity with the aforesaid order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending applications are disposed of.

¶16

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶17

FEBRUARY 06, 2019 MK

Jagdish Prasad & Anr. v. Competent Authority & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad & Anr. v. Competent Authority & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Mahmuda Ahmad Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shri Satya Narain Prakash Punj and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Ms. T. Uma (Ifs) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prof. Shreekant Gupta Vs University of Delhi

Amit Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Aircon Technique Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Public Works Department and Ors.

Akhil Dabas Vs Sub-Registar,Gnct of Delhi

Manish Kumar Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Shri Satya Narain Prakash Punj and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Mr. Rahul Dhammi & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Anil Kumar Agarwal and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

B D Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (Apeda) & Ors.

M/S Gokul Projects Vs Gail Gas Ltd. & Ors.

Dhruv Films Vs Dd Urdu Doordarshan and Ors.