Urmil v. Gaurav
Case brief
What is this about?
In a revision under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Delhi High Court dismissed the tenant's challenge to an eviction order. A single judge held no illegality or perversity existed after the Trial Court dismissed the leave to defend application and ruled for eviction based on bona fide necessity.
What did the court decide?
Conviction of lower court order admitting. Pending applications dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitioner bears own costs.
What the court decided
- $~
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- % Reserved on: 30th January, 2019 Pronounced on: 06th February, 2019
+ RC.REV. 33/2019 & CM APPL No.2702/2019
URMIL ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Shailesh Kapoor, Ms.Suruchi Thapar and Mr.Devashish Marwah, Advocates versus
- GAURAV ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.K.Gahalot, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
- This revision challenges the impugned order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge- Rent Controller(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter ‘Trial Court’) in Eviction Petition E- 77318/2016 titled Gaurav vs Urmil filed by the landlord/respondent herein against the tenant/petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act).
- The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner and passed an eviction order in respect of one shop on ground floor of property bearing No.8777, Shidipura, Karol Bagh, Delhi – 110005 (hereinafter ‘tenanted shop’).
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Trial Court committed any illegality or acted perversely in dismissing the landlord's application for leave to defend and allowing an eviction order.
Whether the petitioner successfully raised triable issues to show that the eviction grounds under Section 14(1)(e) were not bona fide.
Whether the Revisional Court found any failure of justice or lack of opportunity for hearing in the lower court's order.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
URMIL
- respondent
GAURAV
Coram
YOGESH KHANNA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court