- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 15 July 2010
- Bench
- V.B. Gupta
- Case no.
- CM(M) 842/2010
Judgment
V.B.GUPTA, J.
Case details
Parties and counsel
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI CM (M) No.842/2010 & CM No.11414/2010 % Judgment reserved on: 5th July, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 15th July, 2010 1. Mr. Suraj Bhan, S/o Sh. Chandgi Ram, Shop No. 2081, on Plot No. 46, Narela Mandi, Narela, Delhi. 2. Sh. Gopi Ram (Since Deceased) Through his LR"s a. Smt. Sharrati Devi. b. Sh. Har Prakash. c. Sh. Kishan Kumar. d. Sh. Naresh Kumar. e. Sh. Suresh Chand. f. Sh. Ramesh Chand. g. Sh. Phool Chand. h. Sh. Ram Chand. i. Sh. Laxman. All R/o 2131/1, Nai Basti, Behind Narela Mandi, Delhi. j. Smt. Kaushalaya Devi, W/o Satya Narain, Available at Shop No. 2081, On Plot No. 46, Narela Mandi, Narela, Delhi. k. Smt.Kanta Devi (Rani) W/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, Shop No. 2081, On plot no.-46, Narela Mandi, Narela, Delhi. All through: Their duly constituted Attorney, Sh. Parveen Kumar, Shop No. 2081, on Plot No. 46, Narela Mandi, Narela, Delhi. ….Petitioners. Through: Mr. J. P. Singh, Sr. Adv with Mr. Rajiv Aneja and Mr. Sumeet Batra, Advs. Versus 1. Sh. Bharat Singh, Since Deceased Through L.R"s a. Sh. Om Prakash Mittal, R/o, 75757/9-A, Tell Mill Road, Ram Nagar, Delhi-110055. b. Smt. Suraj Mukhi. W/o Late Sh. Rishal Chand, R/o-34, Extn. No. 3, Nangloi, Delhi-110041. c. Smt. Dhanpati, W/o late Sh. Om Prakash Gupta, U-9/C, LIG Flats, Rampura Goan, Delhi. d. Smt. Laxmi Devi. W/o Late Sh. Suraj Bhan Beniwala, R/o 61, Sanatam Mistri Lane, First Floor, Orya Para, Dalika, Hawrah, Wesh Bengal. 2. Sh. Kripa Ram (Since deceased) Through his L.R"s a. Smt. Khillo. b. Sh. Hari Prakash Mittal. c. Sh. Jagdish Prasad. d. Smt. Asha W/o Sh. R. K. Gupta. e. Smt. Anita W/o Shm Madan Gopal Poddar. f. Smt. Sharda, W/o Sri Niwas Aggarwal. g. Smt. Resham, W/o Sh. Kanshi Ram, All C/o Sh. Hari Prakash Mittal, Room No. 8, First Floor, 196, China Bazar Street, Kolkatta-700001. 3. Sh. Tara Chand (Since Deceased) Through his L.R."s a. Sh. Dev Kumar b. Sh. Ram Kumar c. Sh. Raj Kumar d. Sh. Prem Lal all R/o 2067, Narela Mandi, Narela Delhi And Purported to be R/o H. No. 2574-T/21. Narela, Delhi. e. Smt. Raj Dulari, W/o Sh. S. C. Gupta, R/o D-14, Rana Pratap Bagh Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. f. Smt. Satya Wati W/o Sh. S. C. Gupta, C/o Anil Medical Hall & General Store, Visharatwade, Alandi Road, Pune-15. g. Smt. Shakuntla C/o Dr. Om Prakash, R/o Village & Post Office Kilai, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. ….Respondents. Through: Nemo. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside order dated 26th March, 2010 passed by Ms. Bimla Makin, District Judge-VIII, Rent Control Tribunal (for short as "Tribunal") Delhi and in consequence thereof set aside orders dated 16th October, 2008, 8th September, 2008, 12th May, 2008 and 14th January, 2008 passed by Mr. Amit Kumar, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi and further to set aside order dated 8th May, 2008, passed by Sh. Chander Sekhar, Rent Control Tribunal. 2. The facts as apparent from the record of this case are that, respondent no. 1 Sh. Bharat Singh (Since deceased) and respondent no. 2 Sh. Kirpa Ram (Since deceased) filed an eviction petition on the grounds under Section 14 (1) (a), (c) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as Act) stating that suit property i.e Shop no. 2081, on plot no. 16, Narela Mandi, Narela, Delhi, was let out to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 (since deceased ) at a monthly rent of Rs.66/10/ 9 and the same had not been paid by petitioner nos. 1 and 2 since 1st July, 1962 for which recovery suit was instituted against them. It was further alleged that rent from 1st July 1962 is due as on date of filing of this petition (2nd March, 1996). 3. It was also alleged that property was let out for commercial purposes but petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are using part of it for residential purpo
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.