Three review petitions challenging eviction order were dismissed. The High Court found no infirmity in the Rent Controller's findings that the landlord had no alternative suitable accommodation for his electronics business.
The review petitions were dismissed with no order as to 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.
$~2, 3 & 4
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
% Judgment delivered on: 03.02.2020
PUSHPENDER SINGH ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr. V.K.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
RC.REV.23, 25 & 26/2020
Page 1 of 5
RC.REV.23, 25 & 26/2020
Page 2 of 5
running the business of electronics.
RC.REV.23, 25 & 26/2020
Page 3 of 5
RC.REV.23, 25 & 26/2020
Page 4 of 5
eviction petitions holding that the respondent is the owner/landlord and does not have any other suitable alternative accommodation and requires the tenanted premises and that the requirement of the respondent is bonafide.
17. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 03, 2020 rk
RC.REV.23, 25 & 26/2020
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present petitioners are entitled to survive the eviction petition filed by the respondent.
Whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Rent Controller regarding the bona fide requirement and suitability of alternative accommodation.
RAJ KUMAR KASHYAP
NOOR MOHD
SARDAR BALJEET SINGH
PUSHPENDER SINGH
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
