A.P.MISRA, DORAISWAMY RAJU
JOHN IMPEX (P) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SURINDER SINGH – Respondent
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
( 3 ) THE present appeal is directed against the order of the High Court confirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller by virtue of which the leave to defend application was rejected. The question which we are considering is, whether the courts below are justified in rejecting the application of leave to defend on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not in dispute that Respondent 1 earlier filed an application under Section 14 (1 ) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for bona fide need. The submission in the said application was, the landlord wanted to shift to Delhi from Punjab as he is a Dental Surgeon and thus he genuinely required the said accommodation. An application was filed by the appellant in support of his leave to contest and denied the landlords claim. It is stated therein that the application of the Respondent 1 landlord is fanciful, frivolous and also he has no title over the disputed premises. The case of the appellant is, the respondent is neither the owner nor the landlord, as the property belongs to one Smt Puna Devi who is the owner/landlord to whom he has
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.