Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Mahesh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Ghanshyam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction order on bonafide necessity. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's undertakings regarding possession and dues. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent accepts petitioner's undertaking. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. dismissal of petition and stay of eviction order. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 17.10.2014, whereby leave to defend application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order passed.
2. Respondent had filed the subject eviction seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide necessity under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, from Shop No.5 in property No.21A, Railway Station Road, Samaipur, Delhi-110042.
3. Petitioner is present in Court. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions from the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw the petition.
4. Petitioner undertakes that he shall vacate and handover the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent on or before 31.05.2023.
5. Petitioner undertakes that he shall clear all water, electricity and other dues/charges in respect of the tenanted premises befo
A petitioner in eviction proceedings may withdraw their petition by undertaking to vacate and meet financial obligations, acceptable to the court and the opposing party.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act to justify the eviction of the respondent based on the bona fide need of the....
A rent revision petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act can be disposed of as withdrawn when parties arrive at a mutual settlement regarding the vacation of the tenanted premises and payment of occ....
The court upheld the eviction order while allowing the petitioners time to vacate, contingent on their undertaking to comply with payment obligations.
Tenant's failure to tender rent with statutory interest and prove defense against subletting justifies eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Non-payment of rent and failure to prove the nature of possession of the alleged sub-tenant can lead to eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The court has the discretion to grant additional time for the tenant to vacate the premises and may waive claims for use and occupation charges based on the parties' agreement.
Eviction orders under the Public Premises Act can be challenged in court, and a withdrawing petitioner can seek time to vacate while adhering to certain conditions.
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
