Back
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Sh Hari Gopal – Appellant
Versus
Sh Sushil Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 1783/2023 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.
CAV 21/2023
Mr. Nagender Yadav, Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of the Respondents.
Accordingly, the caveat stands discharged.
RC.REV. 6/2023, CM APPL. 1784/2023
1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner (`Tenant'), impugning the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned CCJ acting as the Additional Rent Controller, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in E-148/2019, whereby the Tenant's application seeking leave to defend has been dismissed and the eviction petition filed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (`Landlords') under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`DRC Act') has been allowed.
2. The eviction petition was filed by the Landlords in the year 2019 on the plea that their son, Mr. Kartik Garg, who has recently graduated in the year 2018 and is aged about 21 years requires the tenanted premises to start his business of sale/purchase of hardware and paint items. It was stated in the petition that there was no other alternative suitable accommodation available.
The Court emphasized the importance of providing evidence to support claims and the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction.
The Court emphasized the presumption of bona fide need in favor of the Landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the restrictive scope of interference by the High Court in re....
The landlord's genuine need for tenanted premises, the tenant's burden to provide specific and supported averments, and the landlord's authority to prioritize family needs over tenant's hardship.
The need of the landlords for the tenanted premises for providing commercial accommodation to their adult sons for starting independent business is genuine and the finding of the Trial Court does not....
The moral duty of the father to settle his son well and the absence of other commercial property justified the eviction.
The Court emphasized the importance of proving a landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction and the need for tenants to provide evidence to rebut the landlord's assertions.
An admitted tenant-landlord relationship precludes tenants from contesting ownership via unproven oral sale claims. A landlord's genuine requirement for personal or familial commercial use outweighs ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
