Revision petition against dismissal of a leave-to-defend application in an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for bona fide need. The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's order and dismissed the petition.
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.
$~58
ANIL KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manvendra Mukul, Mr. S K Tiwari, Mr. J K Pandey, Advocates
versus
AMARNATH GUPTA .....Respondent Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
O R D E R
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 03/09/2024 at 11:54:47
(hereinafter referred to as “the tenanted premises” ) and the said tenanted premises was let out to Lalta Prasad i.e., predecessor interest of the petitioner. The petitioner after the death of Lalta Prasad became the tenant in respect of the tenanted premises.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
AUGUST 29, 2024/j/abk
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 03/09/2024 at 11:54:47
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the tenant's application for leave to defend the landlord's bona fide need eviction petition.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar
Amarnath Gupta
Sudhir Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
