Darshan Singh Vs. Avtar Singh and ors.

Darshan Singh vs Avtar Singh and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Mar 07, 1995

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/703828

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/703828
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Arun Kumar, J.
Decided On: Mar 07, 1995
Case Number: C.M. 913/93 and C.M. (M) 162 of 1991
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The case debated on the new plea seeking revision under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - It was found that the contention sought to be raised was not pressed before the Tribunal - Also there was no challenge to the observation made by the Tribunal in this regard - Hence it was ruled that revision...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1) and 27

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Darshan Singh

Advocate Rohit Kumar, Adv

Respondent

Avtar Singh and ors.

Advocate J.K. Sethi, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1) and 27
Reported In: 58(1995)DLT747; 1994RLR439

Excerpt

the case debated on the new plea seeking revision under section 25b(8) of the delhi rent control act, 1958 - it was found that the contention sought to be raised was not pressed before the tribunal - also there was no challenge to the observation made by the tribunal in this regard - hence it was ruled that revision was liable to be dismissed - - rent controller was dismissed by the rent control tribunal vide order dated 21.2.1991. the tribunal has observed that the demand notice was clearly complied with and, thereforee, the landlord had no cause of action for, filing the eviction petition under section 14(1)(a) of the act.arun kumar, j.1. the petitioner landlord filed an eviction petition under clause (a) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the delhi rent control act against the respondent tenant on the ground of non-payment or orent. a notice as envisaged under clause (a) dated 16.2.1983 was issued on behalf of the landlord to the tenant. the tenant moved an application under section 27 of the act on 23.2.1983 are deposited rent with the additional rent controller for three years. on 7.3.1983, the tenant sent an intimation to the landlord regarding the said deposit of rent. the deposit of rent by the tenant was taken as a valid deposit and the eviction petition was dismissed by the addl. rent controller as non-maintainable. an appeal against the said order of the addl. rent controller was dismissed by the rent control tribunal vide order dated 21.2.1991. the tribunal has observed that the demand notice was clearly complied with and, thereforee, the landlord had no cause of action for, filing the eviction petition under section 14(1)(a) of the act. the deposit of rent under section 27 of the act was held to be a valid deposit. the tribunal has further observed towards the end of para 15 of the judgment that 'the validity of the said deposit was not challenged before me in this appeal'. i have put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether this observation of the tribunal has been challenged in the grounds contained in the present petition. the learned counsel has not been able to show anything in the present petition challenging the said observation of the tribunal.2. i find no merit in this petition. the same is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Arun Kumar, J.

1. The Petitioner landlord filed an eviction petition under Clause (a) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the respondent tenant on the ground of non-payment or orent. A notice as envisaged under Clause (a) dated 16.2.1983 was issued on behalf of the landlord to the tenant. The tenant moved an application under Section 27 of the Act on 23.2.1983 are deposited rent with the Additional Rent Controller for three years. On 7.3.1983, the tenant sent an intimation to the landlord regarding the said deposit of rent. The deposit of rent by the tenant was taken as a valid deposit and the eviction petition was dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller as non-maintainable. An appeal against the said order of the Addl. Rent Controller was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated 21.2.1991. The Tribunal has observed that the demand notice was clearly complied with and, thereforee, the landlord had no cause of action for, filing the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The deposit of rent under Section 27 of the Act was held to be a valid deposit. The Tribunal has further observed towards the end of para 15 of the judgment that 'the validity of the said deposit was not challenged before me in this appeal'. I have put to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether this observation of the Tribunal has been challenged in the grounds contained in the present petition. The learned Counsel has not been able to show anything in the present petition challenging the said observation of the Tribunal.

2. I find no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1995 Same Parties Darshan Singh vs Avtar Singh and ors. Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Arun Kumar, J. Acts & Sections Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1) and 27

Tenancy