Partly allowed

Mahinder Kumar v. Pushpa Devi

Delhi HC11 Jul 2024RC.REV./112/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of petition for setting aside eviction order from trial court. Court allowed extra time until 31.03.2025 for vacating premises with conditions on non-subletting and no alterations. Court directed payment of rent and filing of undertaking. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted time till 31.03.2025 to vacate premises on conditions of no subletting or alteration, required to pay monthly rent and file undertaking.

Mahinder Kumar Vs Pushpa Devi — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RC.REV. 112/2024 & CM APPL. 22967/2024

¶4

MAHINDER KUMAR AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. M.S. Khan, Ms. Neha and Ms. M. Arshyan, Advocates with petitioner in person

¶5

versus

¶6

PUSHPA DEVI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Ms. Divyanshi Saxena and Mr. Udit Bhatiani, Advocates R-2 in person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN O R D E R

¶8

% 11.07.2024

¶9

The present petition is filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “DRC Act” ) to set aside the impugned judgment/order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the court of Ms. Neetu Nagar, ARC-02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in eviction petition bearing 79/2022 (new no. 221/2022) titled as Pushpa Devi and Ors. V Bobby whereby the application for leave to defend preferred by the petitioners was dismissed.

¶10

The respondents are claiming to be the owners/landlords of the tenanted premises i.e. two shops situated on the ground floor of property bearing no. 6224, Kucha Shiv Mandir, Naya Bans, Khari Baoli, Delhi110006 as shown in red colour in site plan annexed with the petition.

¶11

The respondents filed a petition under section 14(1)(e) read with

¶12

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2024 at 12:05:44

¶13

section 25B of the DRC Act for eviction of the tenants/petitioner from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement.

¶14

The petitioners preferred an application for leave to defend along with an affidavit and the trial court vide impugned judgment/order dated 18.11.2023, dismissed the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioners, as a consequence of which, an eviction order in respect of the tenanted premises was passed and it was further ordered that in view of section 14(7) of the DRC Act, the order of recovery of possession shall not be executed before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of order. The petitioners being aggrieved, filed the present petition to challenge the impugned judgment/order dated 18.11.2023.

¶15

During the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from the petitioner no. 2 Rajiv Kumar @ Bobby for himself as well as on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 Mahinder Kumar, stated that he is not disputing the eviction judgment/order dated 18.11.2023 but the petitioners be given time till 31.03.2025 to vacate the tenanted premises.

¶16

Ms. Shalini Kapur, Advocate for the respondents, on instructions from the respondent no. 2 Lalit Gupta, stated that the respondents do not have any objection if the time till 31.03.2025 is given to the petitioners to vacate the tenanted premises, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall not sublet, assign or part with possession of the tenanted premises and shall not make any material addition or alteration in the tenanted premises.

¶17

The respondent no. 2 Lalit Gupta, who is one of the landlords/owners of the tenanted premises, stated that he shall not be executing the eviction order till 31.03.2025.

¶18

In view of the above submissions, the impugned judgment/order dated

¶19

¶20

18.11.2023 is perused wherein the trial court has discussed all the necessary ingredients of section 14(1)(e) and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment/order dated 18.11.2023.

¶21

Accordingly, the petitioners are given time to vacate the tenanted premises till 31.03.2025 with the condition that the petitioners shall not sublet, assign or part with the tenanted premises or any part thereof and further, they shall not make any material addition or alteration in the tenanted premises.

¶22

The petitioners are directed to file an undertaking in the form of affidavit before this Court within a period of 02 weeks regarding the abovementioned conditions. The petitioners are also directed to pay the rent @ Rs.735/- per month to the respondents without any default commencing from July, 2024 and the rent for each month shall be paid on or before 7^th day of the succeeding month.

¶23

The present petition along with pending application stands disposed of.

¶24

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J

¶25

JULY 11, 2024 N/AM

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2024 at 12:05:44

Mahinder Kumar v. Pushpa Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahinder Kumar v. Pushpa Devi

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

Nirmal Tripathi Vs Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India

Subash Lohiya Vs Government of Delhi NCT of Delhi

Raj Kumar Security Agency Vs Union of India & Anr.

Hindon Mercantile Limited Vs the Government of India and Another

Jitendra Jindal Vs Om Prakash Kashyap

Abdul Rehman and Ors. Vs D.D.A. and Ors.