https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274126 A tenant's application under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was held barred by Order IX Rule 9 CPC because the earlier proceedings had already culminated in an eviction decree and the respondent sought to re-agitate substantially the same subject-matter through derivative possession. The Court also held that transfer of tenancy rights by the Official Liquidator amounted to an assignment or other parting with possession within Section 14(1)(b), and court confirmation did not take it outside that provision. The High Court's order was set aside, and the tenant's claim failed, subject to limited time to vacate on recorded conditions. en-us Thu, 10 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jul 2018 18:50:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274126 A tenant's application under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was held barred by Order IX Rule 9 CPC because the earlier proceedings had already culminated in an eviction decree and the respondent sought to re-agitate substantially the same subject-matter through derivative possession. The Court also held that transfer of tenancy rights by the Official Liquidator amounted to an assignment or other parting with possession within Section 14(1)(b), and court confirmation did not take it outside that provision. The High Court's order was set aside, and the tenant's claim failed, subject to limited time to vacate on recorded conditions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274126