Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Madhu Jain – Appellant
Versus
Shashi Rani – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tenant's eviction order details. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against eviction. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondent's response to tenant's arguments. (Para 3) |
| 4. court's review scope on housing eviction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. court reaffirms landlady's bonafide requirement. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. key legal principles from cited judgments. (Para 9 , 14) |
| 7. consideration of landlord's bona fide need. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 8. final order on tenant's eviction. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)--The Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, tenant, assailing the eviction order dated 8th June, 2022 passed by the Rent Controller, KKD Courts (Shahdara) Delhi, in respect of shop no. 2, forming part of the property no. 213, Karkardooma Village, Delhi-92 (`tenanted premises'), whereby the Rent Controller has dismissed the Tenant's leave to defend.
Submissions of the petitioner
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the finding of the Rent Controller that the Respondent, landlady, has a bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises is incorrect. He states that the averments of the Respondent is that the tenanted premises are required for earnin
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
