TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds eviction in Delhi Rent Control Act appeal, dismisses respondent's challenge.</h1> <h3>Narender Versus Pradeep Kumar</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in a case involving eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. The Court set aside the High ... - Issues:Eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, Ex parte decree, Setting aside the ex parte decree, Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.Eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958:The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act, alleging that the respondent's wife acquired an alternative residential accommodation. The Additional Rent Controller decreed eviction ex parte on November 21, 2002, as the respondent did not appear despite service of summonses. The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's appeal on April 24, 2003, stating that the respondent's wife had already acquired an alternative residential accommodation. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order on July 23, 2004, granting the respondent an opportunity to defend the suit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was not sustainable as the lower courts had correctly found that the respondent had alternative accommodation. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside.Ex parte decree:The ex parte decree for eviction was passed by the Additional Rent Controller on November 21, 2002, as the respondent failed to appear despite service of summonses. The respondent's application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed on March 5, 2003. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent did not challenge the dismissal of the application, making the ex parte decree final. The Court found that the lower courts had correctly upheld the ex parte decree, and the respondent's failure to pursue the matter further did not warrant interference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.Setting aside the ex parte decree:The respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was dismissed on March 5, 2003. The respondent did not appeal this dismissal, and the ex parte decree became final. The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondent's lack of action on the dismissal of the application precluded the High Court from granting relief under Article 227. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts in dismissing the appeal and affirmed the ex parte decree for eviction.Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution:The High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and remanded the case to the Additional Rent Controller for disposal. The Supreme Court found the High Court's decision unsustainable, as the lower courts had correctly established the respondent's alternative residential accommodation. The Court held that the High Court had no grounds for interfering in the matter and allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and affirming the decisions of the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
