ADARSH ELECTRICALS Vs. DINESH DAYAL
LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-201
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on October 25,2010

Adarsh Electricals Appellant
VERSUS
Dinesh Dayal Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MUKESH KUMAR V. RISHI PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
BELL AND CO. LTD. V. WAMAN HEMRAJ [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKAR VS. RAO GIRDHARI LAL CHODHURY [REFERRED TO]
SARLA AHUJA VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
S N KAPOOR D VS. BASANT LAL KHATRI [REFERRED TO]
KANNIAMMAL VS. CHELLARAM [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SINGH BAJWA VS. MONISH SAINI [REFERRED TO]
SATYAWATI SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAM BABU AGARWAL VS. JAY KISHAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VS. TIRATH RAM CHOPRA [REFERRED TO]
FRANK ANTHONY PUBLIC SCHOOL VS. AMAR KAUR [REFERRED TO]
JOHN IMPEX PVT LTD VS. SURINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA VS. LEELA WATI [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN JAIN VS. VIMLA [REFERRED TO]
SARWAN DASS BANGE VS. RAM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DAVINDER PAL SINGH VS. PRITAM PRAKASH DAWAR [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. J.P. GUPTA AND SONS VS. MALTI NARANG AND ANOTHER [LAWS(DLH)-2017-1-315] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. NEELAMDAWAR [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SALEEM VS. ZAHEER AHMAD [LAWS(DLH)-2023-3-16] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V.B.GUPTA,J. - (1.)PRESENT petition under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as 'Act) has been filed on behalf of petitioners for quashing of order dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (for short as 'Controller') vide which petitioners' application seeking leave to contest the eviction petition was dismissed and eviction order has been passed u/s. 14 (1) (e) of the Act, in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners.
(2.)BRIEF facts as per eviction petition are that respondent (petitioner in the trial court) is the owner/landlord of property known as "Kundan Mansion" bearing no. 1769 to 1772 and 1783 to 1785 Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
Petitioner No. 1 (respondent No. 1 in the trial court) a partnership firm, is a tenant in the portion consisting of one hall, two rooms, two verandahs, latrine and open court yard, as shown in red in the site plan annexed with the eviction petition. The premises in question were let out for office-cum- showroom and godown purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 980/-.

(3.)IT is stated that premises are required bona fide by the respondent for himself for setting up his professional office and he has no other suitable accommodation for this purpose. Respondent was enrolled as an Advocate in 1969. He practiced as an Advocate with Shri Vishnu Bhagwan Andley, Advocate, till he joined Delhi Judicial Service in 1973. He was working as Additional District and Sessions Judge, In-charge Karkardooma Court, at the time of his superannuation on February 29, 2008. Thereafter, respondent started his own practice as an Advocate. He now requires the premises to set up his professional office.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.