Back
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Pankaj Pahwa – Appellant
Versus
Prem Wati – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.)
1. The order dated 18.01.2018 passed by a Coordinate Bench reflects that the possession of the one big room at the first floor in Property No. - WZ-95/2, Titar Pur, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-110027 shown in red colour as per site plan annexed [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”] has been handed over to the Respondent/landlord through execution proceedings.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant affirms that the possession of subject premises has been taken over.
3. The issue of whether a Revision Petition is maintainable when the tenanted subject premises has been legally restored to the Respondents/landlord, either during or before the filing of the Revision Petition, has been addressed by the Supreme Court as well as by Coordinate Benches of this Court. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 612/2015 Page 1 of 13
4. The Supreme Court in NC Daga v. Inder Mohan Singh Rana, (2003) 1 SCC 453, dealt with a similar situation while dismissing a challenge by a tenant to a judgment passed by this Court upholding an order declining leave to defend passed by the learned Trial Court. The facts in the case were that, possession of th
A revision petition becomes infructuous when possession of the tenanted premises has been restored to the landlord, limiting the High Court's role to procedural compliance.
A revision petition becomes infructuous when possession of the tenanted premises has been restored to the landlord, limiting the High Court's role to procedural compliance.
The landlord's bonafide requirement for commercial use of residential property is valid if tenants are already using it commercially, and previous dismissals do not bar new petitions based on new evi....
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to ensuring lower courts adhered to legal standards, without reassessing evidence as in an appellate court.
The tenant's acquisition of alternative accommodation under Section 13(1)(l) of the Rent Act justified eviction, with the principle of greater hardship being irrelevant in this context.
The High Court's revisionary jurisdiction is limited to procedural compliance and cannot reassess evidence as an appellate court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the rental agreement and the consequences of non-payment of rent under the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960.
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
