Dismissed

Sh. Ajaib Singh v. Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma

Delhi HC5 Dec 2024RSA/52/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a judgment where the Trial Court passed an eviction order without first deciding on jurisdiction. The High Court agreed with the first Appellate Court that the Trial Court was wrong and directed them to decide the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

The Trial Court directed to decide the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Sh. Ajaib Singh Vs Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RSA 52/2022

¶4

SH. AJAIB SINGH .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. B. K. Singh and Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

SH. RAJ KUMAR SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mehak Nakra, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Aditya Goyal, Adv. for R-1, 2 & 5.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 05.12.2024

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant on admission.

¶12

By way of the instant appeal, the appellant is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 26.03.2022, passed in MCA No. 24/2019, titled " Raj Kumar Sharma vs. Ajaib Singh " by the Court of Additional District Judge, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

¶13

The Court takes note of the findings rendered by the first Appellate Court in paragraph no.12, which, inter alia, states that the Trial Court ought to have decided the issue of applicability of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and then only should have proceeded to decide the controversy on merit.

¶14

The first Appellate Court held that the Trial Court should have first adjudicated on issue No.1 concerning its jurisdiction, before passing the

¶15

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 19/12/2024 at 13:04:27

¶16

eviction order. It was also held that the Trial Court order was passed in haste, rendering it non-est and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The findings rendered by the first Appellate Court in the aforementioned paragraph read as follows: -

¶17

“12. If it is found, on a trial on the merits so far as this issue No.1 of jurisdiction goes, that the facts alleged by the plaintiff are not true and the facts alleged by the defendants are true, and that the case is not cognizable by the court. It is found that present suit is barred by Sec.50 of DRC Act, it is not cognizable by the civil court including the Ld. Trial Court, the plaintiffs’ suit will have to be dismissed in its entirety. Therefore, Ld. Trial Court should have first decided the issue no.1 which is regarding its jurisdiction and only after that should have passed the eviction order. The impugned order was passed by Ld. Trial Court in haste and is non est and, therefore, liable to be set aside.”

¶18

In light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the findings rendered by the first Appellate Court are unassailable. Therefore, no substantial question of law has arisen for adjudication in the instant appeal.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, submits that before the Trial Court, an application for deletion of the issues was also filed. Let all those aspects be looked into by the Trial Court.

¶20

Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court directs that the Trial Court to decide the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶22

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶23

DECEMBER 5, 2024/p/mjo

¶24

Sh. Ajaib Singh v. Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Ajaib Singh v. Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma

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

Gurmeet Singh Now Deceased through Its Lrs Vs Sukh Devi Jain Now Deceased through Its Lrs

Kultar Singh Malhotra Vs Jai Dev & Ors.

M/S. D.D. Industries Ltd. Vs K.L. Arora & Ors.

Desh Raj Vs Union of India

Mst Priyank Nagarwal & Ors. Vs Soverign School & Anr.

Mehul Minor through Natural Guardian Mr Sonu Vs Vishal Bharti Public School & Anr.