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

2000 Supreme(SC) 1588

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


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