Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-26-2015
CM(M) 1394/2011 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the concurrent judgment of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 1st July, 2008 and Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 18th November, 2011 by which the eviction petition filed by the respondent on the ground of sub-letting has been allowed in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. Shop No.106, First Floor, Mansarovar Building, 90, Nehru Place, New Delhi. 2. The respondents filed an eviction petition against the petitioner seeking eviction on the grounds of sub-letting under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. The eviction petition after trial was decreed in terms of the judgment by the learned ARC. The appeal preferred against the said judgment before the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal also failed. 3. Challenge by the petitioner to the impugned orders are interalia on following grounds:- (i) The petitioner N.K.Jain had taken the suit premises on rent vide l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-27-2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.S.A. 12/2002 & C.M. No.16924/2011 Decided on : May 27, 2015 M/S BHARAT INSULATION COMPANY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. H.L. Tiku, Senior Advocate with Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Advocate. versus DR.SURAJ PARKASH & ORS.1 Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Ms.Charul Sarin, Ms. Veera Angrish & Mr. Ajitesh K. Kir, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is a regular second appeal (rent) filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 06.02.2002 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No.883/1996 titled M/s Bharat Insulation Company Thane (State of Maharashtra) & Ors. vs. Dr.Suraj Prakash and Ors by virtue of which the learned Addl. Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT for short) has upheld the judgment of eviction dated 01.10.1996, passed 1 Vide Order dated 30.04.2009 Ms. Shahnaz Parveen has been substituted as Respondent No.1, but no amended memo of parties is on record. against the appellant by the Addl. Rent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-02-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : January 08, 2015 Judgment Delivered on : February 02, 2015 + RFA (OS) 55/2014 DELUXE DENTELLES PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Appellants Represented by: Mr.C.A.Sundram, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Divvya Kesaar and Mr.Mannmohit K.Puri, Advocates versus SMT. ISHPINDER KOCHHAR .....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sumit Bansal, Advocate with Mr.Ateev Mathur and Ms.Jagriti Ahuja, Advocates FAO (OS) 117/2014 DELUXE DENTELLES PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Appellants Represented by: Mr.C.A.Sundram, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Divya Kesar and Mr.Manmohit K.Puri, Advocates versus SMT. ISHPINDER KOCHHAR .....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Sumit Bansal, Advocate with Mr.Ateev Mathur and Ms.Jagriti Ahuja, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff before the learned Single Judge. We shall be referring to the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-13-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :9. h February, 2015 Judgment delivered on :13th February,2015 % CS(OS) 623/2010 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Plaintiff Through: Mr. Suryakant Singla with Mr. Shanto Mukerjee, Advocates Versus MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA Through: .Defendant Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff Surendra Kumar Gupta against his brother Mukesh Kumar Gupta. It is a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits/damages and for injunction.2. The plaintiff had purchased half undivided share in House No.E-262, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi from Smt. Kamla Kundra vide sale deed dated 18th December, 1974. This is a registered document. It is stated to be the self acquired property of the plaintiff. It is on a plot of land admeasuring 250 square yards upon which initially there was one and a half storeyed building built upon it.3. Devinder Nath Gupta, half broth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 2/2015 and CM No.43/2014 (Stay) Reserved on:7. h January, 2015 % Decided on:9. h January, 2015 M/S MOTI MAHAL DELUX-II ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Ms. Ruchira Arora and Mr. Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates. versus KIRAN DUTTA & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi and Ms. Ekta Sukhramani, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 The grievance of the Petitioner to the order dated 3rd December, 2014 is to the extent that while allowing the amendment application and taking the amended petition on record the Rent Controller granted liberty to the Respondents to withdraw the relief of eviction on the ground of the bona fide requirement and file a fresh petition on the said ground.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Respondents herein filed a composite petition seeking the relief of eviction of tenanted premises under Section 14 (1) (a) and 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-09-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 2/2015 and CM No.43/2014 (Stay) Reserved on:7. h January, 2015 % Decided on:9. h January, 2015 M/S MOTI MAHAL DELUX-II ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Ms. Ruchira Arora and Mr. Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates. versus KIRAN DUTTA & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi and Ms. Ekta Sukhramani, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 The grievance of the Petitioner to the order dated 3rd December, 2014 is to the extent that while allowing the amendment application and taking the amended petition on record the Rent Controller granted liberty to the Respondents to withdraw the relief of eviction on the ground of the bona fide requirement and file a fresh petition on the said ground.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Respondents herein filed a composite petition seeking the relief of eviction of tenanted premises under Section 14 (1) (a) and 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-01-2015
1. These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the impugned decision dated 16th September, 2013 passed by the learned ARC is identical except that in RC.REV. 392/2013 Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd.is the tenant of the petitioner for first and second floor and roof rights and in RC.REV. 394/2013 Bimla Devi and Ors.are the tenants in respect of basement, ground floor and garage of the petitioner in suit property bearing No.A-7, Green Park, New Delhi. 2. A brief exposition of facts is that the Petitioner filed two eviction petitions being Eviction No.11/09 and Eviction No.10/09 under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act stating that he was the owner/landlord of the suit property which was built by his father Sardar Sarjeet Singh Koghar (since deceased), who had bought the piece of land from Shri Udhe Singh Gahunia vide sale deed dated 6th November, 1963 which was duly registered on 13th November, 1963. The suit property comprises of a building on A-7, Green Park Main, New Delhi which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2012 passed by the Fist Appellate Court, namely, the learned ADJ, Central-17, Delhi in RCA No.17/2011 preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs. The Fist Appellate Court dismissed the said first appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2011 passed by the Trial Court, namely, Civil Judge, Central-5, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No.472/2010. The Trial Court had similarly dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and damages. 2. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants was that they had initially let out the suit property bearing no.1337, Ground Floor, Sector-D, Pocket-1, DDA Flats, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to the respondent/defendant on 18.06.1988 on an initial rent of Rs.2,500/- excluding water, electricity and other charges. The said lease was for a period of three years w.e.f. 19.06.1988. Consequently, the said initial lease expired on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-30-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 217/2014 Reserved on:22. d April, 2015 Decided on:30. h June, 2015 % KRANTI KUMAR PARAKH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Tanmay Mehta with Mr. Pulkit Aggarwal, Advs. versus M/S ANNRAJ NARAIN DASS & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Lalit Gupta with Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advs. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21st April, 2014 whereby the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) was dismissed, the petitioner prefers the present petition.2. Petitioner Kranti Kumar Parakh filed an eviction petition against the tenants M/s. Annraj Narain Dass & Ors. and Sukhraj Kumar Kochar through their legal heirs Kirti Kochar and Kishore Kochar being owner and landlord of the property on the ground of bonafide requirement of his own. In the eviction petition it was stated that the suit property i.e H.No.94...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-10-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 158/2014 Reserved on:5. h February, 2015 Decided on:10. h February, 2015 % VIMLA DEVI Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Saurabh Chauhan and Mr. Varun Jain, Advocates versus SUNIL DUA Through ..... Respondent Mr. Rajeev Sharma and Mr. Gagan Minocha, Advocates Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. By the impugned judgment dated 27th August, 2013 the learned ARC has dismissed the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) on the ground that since the rent as per the notice dated 30.12.2008 was `3630/- P.M. the petition does not fall under the purview of the DRC Act.2. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent from shop No.6, A Block Market, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi (in short the tenanted premises) which were let out vide agreement dated 16th November, 2010 at a monthly rent of `3000/-. Though as per the agreement...
Tag this Judgment!