Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Sheela Devi @ Sheela Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Preeti Arora – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner argues urgency in eviction matter. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. previous court orders highlight necessity for timely hearing. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. details from another leave to defend application noted. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. ongoing adjournments of the review application discussed. (Para 9) |
| 5. court mandates urgent hearings via recent resolutions. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. final order for expeditious resolution of petitions. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
C.R.P. 49/2021
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 6th July 2021 passed by the ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (East), Karkardooma Courts, vide which the leave to defend application pending before the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter, "ARC") in the Petitioner's case has been adjourned to 15th November 2021. The brief background to this petition is that the Petitioner-landlady, had filed an eviction petition against the Respondent-tenant, in respect of the shop admeasuring 8ft*16ft in dimensions, bearing Shop no.7, F-14 A, Parwana Road, Jagatpuri, Delhi-110051, on the ground of bona fide necessity under Section 14 (1)(e
Courts must expedite hearings and prevent unnecessary adjournments in eviction matters based on bona fide necessity, adhering to prior judicial directives.
Control Of Eviction of Tenants - Order sheets of trial court clearly show that on some ground or the other, adjournments are being granted in matter without any valid justification.
The failure to file an Application for Leave to Defend within the statutory period allowed the court to consider the Petitioner/landlord's averments in the Eviction Petition as true and correct, lead....
Failure to file an application seeking leave to defend within the statutory period under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, results in the deemed admission of the landlord's statement in the eviction ....
Order 22 Ru1e 4 provides that any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of deceased defendant.
Legal representatives may only adopt defenses of the deceased in eviction proceedings and cannot file new applications inconsistent with prior defenses.
The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of applications seeking leave to defend and the requirement for issues raised to give rise to a triable issue in eviction cases.
The Rent Controller cannot condone any delay in filing a leave to defend application, and a corporate entity can maintain an eviction petition for its bona fide need.
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
