CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Giriraj & Anr vs Sheela Devi & Anr

Delhi High Court · Decided on 17 October 2019 · Citation: (2019) 10 DEL CK 0145

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 1 Rule 10 · Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 25B
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
RC.Revision No. 221 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 344 words

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J

1.

Petitioners impugn order dated 18.10.2018, whereby, application of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC and leave to defend application under Section 25-B Delhi Rent Control Act have been dismissed.

2.

Subject eviction petition was filed by the respondent No.1 (Eviction Petitioner) with regard to a shop in property bearing Municipal No.1377, Mohalla Sangatrashan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi against Smt. Bimla Devi. No leave to defend application was filed by Smt. Bimla Devi.

3.

Subject application was filed by the petitioner contending that the petitioner is in occupation of the subject property and Smt. Bimla Devi is not a tenant and has no concern with the subject property.

4.

Application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Rent Controller holding that no document had been produced by the petitioner to show any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner/applicant and the respondent No. 1 (Eviction Petitioner).

5.

Learned counsel submits that there is no relationship between the petitioner/applicant and the respondent No. 1 (Eviction Petitioner).

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 (Eviction Petitioner) also contends that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent No. 1(Eviction Petitioner) and the petitioner herein/applicant before the Rent Controller.

7.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that since the stand of the respondent No. 1 (Eviction Petitioner) is that the petitioner is not a tenant, he seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law to protect his possession inter alia by initiating independent proceedings before a Civil Court as also by filing objections to the execution of the impugned order.

8.

Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

9.

Needless to state that since the application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the petitioner is not the tenant under the respondent No. 1 (Eviction petitioner), the order shall not affect the rights, if any, of the petitioner to the subject property.

10.

Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.