SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 123

S.N.VARIAVA, S.S.M.QUADRI
Hari Shanker – Appellant
Versus
Gobind Parshad Jagdish Parshad – Respondent


ORDER

SLP (C) 2166-2168/2001

Heard Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1.

2. Leave is granted.

3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court in C.M. Nos. 722-724 of 2000 in S.A.O. No. 365 of 1987 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

4. The appellant is a tenant of premises Nos. H-18 and 19. Gobind Mansion, Connaught Circus, New Delhi of which the first respondent is the landlord. On 18th January, 1985, the appellant suffered an order of eviction from the additional rent controller on the ground that he sub-let the premises - a ground available to the first respondent - the landlord to seek eviction under section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant carried the matter in appeal before the rent control tribunal. The tribunal, by its order dated 22nd July, 1987, reversed the order of the additional rent controller and allowed the appeal of the appellant. The first respondent filed the abovementioned second appeal from order (SAO) No. 365 of 1987 on 15th December, 1987. On 11th September, 2000, when the socond appeal came up for h











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top