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

2009 Supreme(Del) 224

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
Raghbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sheela Wanti – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. K.D. Kaushal, Advocate
Mr. G.D. Chopra, Advocate

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 15th September 1998 passed by learned Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) whereby an appeal filed by the respondent against the order of learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 17th January 1998 was allowed and the eviction order passed by learned ARC was set aside.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that that the tenant/respondent had suffered an order under Section 14(1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act), however, the eviction order was not passed against the tenant giving him benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act vide judgment dated 22nd January 1981 of the Court of RCT. This judgment became final as far as tenant was concerned, although the landlord was aggrieved by other part of the judgment and had preferred an appeal against that judgment. After this judgment, tenant again committed a default in payment of the rent and he failed to pay the rent from 1st January 1992 onwards. The landlord issued a demand notice dated 7th October 1992 calling upon the tenant that he was in arrears with effect from 1st January 1992 and he should pay and tender arrears @ Rs.80 per month with effect fr














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