https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304390 A jurisdictional satisfaction under Clause (d) of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act had to rest on material on record showing the landlord's institutional status and bona fide requirement for its activities. A counsel's statement across the Bar could not, in the circumstances, be treated as a binding admission of the tenant; without it, no material supported the statutory satisfaction, so the eviction order was without jurisdiction. A compromise also required consensus between the parties, and a unilateral request for time to vacate did not amount to a binding settlement. The challenge failed and the appeal was dismissed with costs. en-us Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Sep 2022 17:43:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304390 A jurisdictional satisfaction under Clause (d) of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act had to rest on material on record showing the landlord's institutional status and bona fide requirement for its activities. A counsel's statement across the Bar could not, in the circumstances, be treated as a binding admission of the tenant; without it, no material supported the statutory satisfaction, so the eviction order was without jurisdiction. A compromise also required consensus between the parties, and a unilateral request for time to vacate did not amount to a binding settlement. The challenge failed and the appeal was dismissed with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304390