TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the tenant's application under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was barred by the dismissal of the earlier suit and the operation of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether the transfer of tenancy rights in favour of the respondent by the Official Liquidator attracted Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Issue (i): Whether the tenant's application under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was barred by the dismissal of the earlier suit and the operation of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Analysis: The prior proceedings had already resulted in an eviction decree against the original tenant, and the respondent had derived possession through the transfer of tenancy rights. On the facts, the subject-matter was substantially the same, and the earlier dismissal operated to prevent the respondent from re-agitating the claim. The bar under Order IX Rule 9 was therefore applicable.
Conclusion: The application was barred and could not be maintained by the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether the transfer of tenancy rights in favour of the respondent by the Official Liquidator attracted Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Analysis: The Official Liquidator acted in the shoes of the original tenant, and the transfer of tenancy interest in favour of the respondent amounted to a voluntary sale or, at any rate, an assignment within the wide language of Section 14(1)(b). That provision covers subletting, assignment, and any other mode by which possession is parted with, and does not exclude such a transfer merely because court confirmation was obtained.
Conclusion: The transfer fell within Section 14(1)(b) and the respondent could not claim protection under the Act.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's order was set aside and the respondent's application under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act failed, while limited time was granted to vacate on the conditions recorded in the order.
Ratio Decidendi: A party deriving rights through a transfer that is substantially the same subject-matter as one already concluded cannot avoid the procedural bar under Order IX Rule 9, and a transfer of tenancy rights that parts with possession falls within Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act even if effected through court-sanctioned proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
