Back
GIRISH KATHPALIA
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Girish Kathpalia, J. - This petition brought under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act assails order dated 19.08.2015 of the learned Rent Controller whereby application of the present petitioner for grant of leave to contest the eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed, holding that no triable issue was raised on behalf of the present petitioner. On service of notice of these proceedings, the present respondents entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes, as extracted from rival pleadings and records are as follows.
2.1. The present respondents, claiming themselves to be the owner of property bearing No. WZ-883, Khazan Basti, Part of property No. WZ-2, Nangal Raya, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act seeking eviction of the present petitioner/tenant, pleading therein that the present respondent no. 1 aged about 56 years had suffered a heart attack and knee problems, due to which she is unable to move; that the present respondents no. 2 and 3 are her married sons;
The landlord's discretion in choosing eviction grounds and the relevance of the premises' use after vacation were central to the court's decision.
The court emphasized the landlord's right to eviction through summary proceedings and the tenant's obligation to provide evidence to support claims at the stage of seeking leave to contest.
The landlord's bona fide requirement should not be doubted, and the tenant must make out a case showing that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an eviction order.
The court highlighted the importance of timely filing of application for leave to contest, valid reasons for extension, and the need for a substantial case for consideration of the application.
Concealment of vital facts vitiates the landlord's claim of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Right to property, though not a fundamental right is still a constitutional right. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save by authorit....
The court upheld the eviction order, confirming the landlords' bona fide need for the tenanted premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, despite the tenants' claims of independent tenancy.
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
