Revision petitioner sought quarters against an eviction order. Court upheld the lower court's eviction order finding landlord's bona fide claim established and held revision not maintainable as possession was already taken over.
Revision petition dismissed; proceedings concluded as possession was already taken over.
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.
$~75
Through: Mr. V.K. Anand, Advocate
versus
VIRENDER KUMAR JAIN .....Respondent Through:
CORAM:
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 30/09/2024 at 11:58:16
relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as under:-
12. Therefore, in the light of the pleadings of the parties and other material placed before this court, in so far as the purpose of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 is concerned, the petitioner is found to be the owner of the premise and it is also found that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
13. According to the respondent, the petitioner is in possession of sufficient alternative accommodation more than his requirements. However, the respondent has failed to support his averments with any supporting document.
14. On the other hand, petitioner has very categorically denied the availability of any alternative accommodation as alleged by the respondent. The petitioner has been able to bring supporting documents on record to discard the grounds raised by the respondent in his leave to defend application whereas the respondent has failed to file any supporting documents so as to disbelieve the bona-fide need of the petitioner.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
17. It is now well settled law that it is the petitioner himself, who is the best person to explain as to what is his/ her bona-fide necessity. As per the petitioner in the case in hand, the suit premises are required bonafidely, he is not having any other suitable and reasonable accommodation available with him throughout Delhi.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
19. A bald statement without supporting material does not give rise to a triable issue entitling tenant for leave to defend.
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 30/09/2024 at 11:58:16
of the tenanted premises is taken over by the landlord, the present revision petition is not maintainable.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 j
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 30/09/2024 at 11:58:16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition is maintainable after the landlord has taken over possession.
Whether the impugned eviction order requires interference on merit.
Whether the bona fide requirement of the landlord is established.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
case once the possession of the tenanted premises is taken over by the landlordReferred¶25
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan Lal
Viren timer Kumar Jain
Sudhir Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
