Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's relationship to tenant and claim to joint tenancy. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposition to petitioner’s application based on lack of evidence. (Para 3) |
| 3. timeliness of petition as grounds for dismissal. (Para 4) |
| 4. inordinate delay requires satisfactory explanation. (Para 5) |
| 5. merits of case not supporting petitioner's claim. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. final decision and dismissal. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 12th March, 2019 passed by the Rent Controller, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ARC No.463/2016 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC) for impleading him as respondent no.2 in the aforesaid eviction proceedings has been dismissed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the brother of the respondent no.2/tenant, Praveen Kumar and that they were both inducted as tenants in the suit premises after the death of their father and were jointly paying the rent. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party in the eviction petition and he should
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
