Dismissed
Raj Kumar v. Sh. Ravi Gupta
Delhi HCRC.REV./210/2024
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
In a landlord-tenant dispute where the tenant already took possession, the High Court held the petition per se not maintainable and disposed of the matter.
What did the court decide?
The petition and pending applications stood disposed of as infructuous.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
$~22
¶2
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
¶3
- RC.REV. 210/2024, CM APPL. 44560/2024-Stay, CM APPL. 44561/2024-Exp.
¶4
RAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: None. versus SH. RAVI GUPTA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Alankar Tewari, Adv. (through VC)
¶5
CORAM:
¶6
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 15.09.2025
¶7
- There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
¶8
- Learned counsel for the respondent reiterates his submissions made on the last date of hearing, i.e. 21.08.2025 that since the petitioner/ landlord has already taken possession of the subject premises on 05.06.2025, the present petition has become infructuous.
¶9
- As such, as also considering the dictum passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C. Daga v. Inder Mohan Singh Rana [2003 (1) SCC 453 and Vinod Kumar Verma v. Manmohan Verma & Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos.5220-5221 of 2008 order dated 19.08.2008], the present petition is per se not maintainable.
¶10
- In view of the above, the present petition alongwith the pending applications having rendered infructuous, stands disposed of.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
AI extract
Whether the petition is maintainable since the landlord has already taken possession of the premises?
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Raj Kumar
- respondent
Sh. Ravi Gupta
Coram
AI extract
Saurabh Banerjee
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court