Full Text
Translation output
J 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 332/2011
SHEELA KAUR Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
RC.REV. 332/2011
SHEELA KAUR Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
AJIT SINGH Respondent
Through: None
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
24.08.2011 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only ground on which the petitioner had sought leaveto defend eviction petition filed againsther in respect of the premises in question by her landlord, respondent herein, on the ground of his bonafide requirement of the same was that the respondent-landlord has agreed to sell the premises in question to her and since she had failed to execute the sale deed and accept the unpaid sale consideratinos a suit for specific perfoimance had been filed and because of that agreementbetween the parties of which specific performance was being sought there was no relationship of the landlord-tenant between the parties. The learned trial Court in the impugned order has noted that the petitioner herein had lodged one FIR against the respondent in which she had claimed herself to be the tenant of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner had claimed herself to be a tenant in the premises in question but that was the position prior to the transanction of sale between the parties and that is why leave to defend had been sought on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord- tenant between the parties and consequently the admission of that relationship made by the petitioner in the FIR lodged by her against her landlord could not be made a ground for rejecting the leave to defend application.
RC.REV. 332/2011
2011:DHC:15872 As far as the pendency ofthe suit for specific performance is concerned, the learned trial Court has observed in the impugned order that in case the petitioner herein succeeds in that suit, which was based only on oral agreement, she could getbackthepossession ofthepremises in question.
Since the petitioner admittedly was a tenant in respect ofthe premises in question and she having not challenged the bonafide requirement ofthe tenanted premises claimed by the respondent-landlord I do not find any perversity in the impugned order justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed inlimine.
P.K. BHA^, J AUGUST 24, 2011
24.08.2011 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only ground on which the petitioner had sought leaveto defend eviction petition filed againsther in respect of the premises in question by her landlord, respondent herein, on the ground of his bonafide requirement of the same was that the respondent-landlord has agreed to sell the premises in question to her and since she had failed to execute the sale deed and accept the unpaid sale consideratinos a suit for specific perfoimance had been filed and because of that agreementbetween the parties of which specific performance was being sought there was no relationship of the landlord-tenant between the parties. The learned trial Court in the impugned order has noted that the petitioner herein had lodged one FIR against the respondent in which she had claimed herself to be the tenant of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner had claimed herself to be a tenant in the premises in question but that was the position prior to the transanction of sale between the parties and that is why leave to defend had been sought on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord- tenant between the parties and consequently the admission of that relationship made by the petitioner in the FIR lodged by her against her landlord could not be made a ground for rejecting the leave to defend application.
RC.REV. 332/2011
2011:DHC:15872 As far as the pendency ofthe suit for specific performance is concerned, the learned trial Court has observed in the impugned order that in case the petitioner herein succeeds in that suit, which was based only on oral agreement, she could getbackthepossession ofthepremises in question.
Since the petitioner admittedly was a tenant in respect ofthe premises in question and she having not challenged the bonafide requirement ofthe tenanted premises claimed by the respondent-landlord I do not find any perversity in the impugned order justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed inlimine.
P.K. BHA^, J AUGUST 24, 2011
RC.REV. 332/2011
2011:DHC:15872
2011:DHC:15872
JUDGMENT