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

1997 Supreme(Del) 202

USHA MEHRA
ASA SINGH VIRDI – Appellant
Versus
ASIT KUMAR SARKAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.S.Vohra

Usha Mehra, J.

( 1 ) ACTUAL date notice was issued which was duly served on the respondents as per office report. But inspite of service no one put in appearance in the week commencing 6th March, 1995. Earlier also notice was served but none appeared. It is in this background that I do not consider it necessary to serve the respondent afresh.

( 2 ) THE short point involved in this petition is, whether fresh revised agreed rent or the initial fixed rent would be the determining factor to calculate arrears of rent? The Additional Rent Control (in short the ARC) relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Allied Engineers Vs. Smt. Harbaksh Gill 1985 Rajdhani Law Reporter 128 held that initial rent would prevail because the mutually agreed rent fixed by the parties thereby refixing the rate of rent at Rs. 950. 00 w. e. f. 1st September, 1990 was a periodical increase. Since it was a periodical increase in rent due to the agreement arrived at between the parties hence the petitioner would not be entitled to an order under Section 15 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act ).

( 3 ) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that the respondent was inducted as a tenant on









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