Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
NAVIN CHAWLA
Suraj Prakash Pahwa – Appellant
Versus
Nand Lal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of rent control tribunal order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. validity of petition and res judicata (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. landlord's duty and tenant's rights (Para 4 , 10 , 11 , 17) |
| 4. notice as fulfilling legal requirements (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. dismissal of petition and urgency in pending matters (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.07.2020 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, being RCT No. 33/2019.
2. The respondent herein had filed a petition under Section 44 (3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `Act') before the learned Additional Rent Controller, claiming that the respondent is a tenant of the petitioner with respect to shop bearing private no. (32-33) on the ground floor of property bearing no. IX/1604, (old no. X-499/3), Sri Krishna Market, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031, and the same is not habitable or usable besides being in a deplorable condition. The respondent asserted that inspite of the legal notice dated 07.11.2015 being served on the petitioner, the petitioner has failed
A tenant's right to seek repairs arises continuously under Section 44(3) of the Act, regardless of withdrawing a previous petition, which does not trigger res judicata.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the filing of a petition itself can be considered as notice to the landlord, giving rise to a fresh cause of action, and the non-service of pr....
The requirement of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is for the benefit of the parties and can be waived by the tenant.
The mandatory nature of Section 14(2) of the DRC act and the landlord's remedy to file a civil suit for possession when the tenant denies the landlord-tenant relationship.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the DRC Act did not empower the Rent Controller to grant the prayers in the suit, making the suit maintainable before the Civil Judge.
The court established that under Sec. 32(4) of the Rent Control Act, tenants must be given a fair opportunity to contest eviction proceedings, and failure to serve notice on the tenant constitutes a ....
High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jur....
The failure of the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Act, after the landlord's refusal to accept the tendered rent, makes the tenant liable for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the....
As per the first proviso to Section 11(1), nothing contained in this Section shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is State Government or Central Government or other public authority notified under ....
Important points:No clear averments in the petition to the effect that the landlord is occupying a part of the building and the tenant is occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of t....
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
