The Buddhist Society of India v. Tarash Pal Jain

Delhi High Court · 14 Dec 2015 · 2015:DHC:12001
V.K. Shali
RC.REV. 429/2015
2015:DHC:12001
civil appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court set aside eviction orders passed under an incorrect provision of the Rent Control Act and permitted the landlord to withdraw and refile eviction petitions under the appropriate section.

Full Text
Translation output
$-3, 4, 22, 26 & 27 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 429/2015 & C.M. No.15229/2015
TARASH PAL JAIN - Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Mr. Zuber Ahmad
& Mr. Deeptanshu Jain, Advocates.
VERSUS
THE BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF INDIA Respondent
Through: Mr. Chetan Shandilya & Mr. Priyanka Kapoor, Advocates.
WITH
RC.REV. 430/2015 & C.M. No.15232/2015
NASIRHUSSAIN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil KumarGupta, Mr. ZuberAhmad
VERSUS
Through: Mr. ChetanShandilya & Mr. Priyanka ^
WITH
RC.REV. 288/2014 & C.M. No.14420/2014
DHAN KUMAR JAIN AND ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashu Bhatia, Advocate.
VERSUS
BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF INDIA Respondent
WITH
X
2015:DHC:12001 c
RC.REV. 427/2015 & C.M. No. 15221/2015
ASGHARALI .....Petitioner
VERSUS
AND
RC.REV. 428/2015 «& C.M. No. 15225/2015
SALEK CHAND JAIN Petitioner
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Chetan Shandilya &Mr. Priyanka CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
14.12.2015
ORDER

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it has been agreed that as there is a jurisdictional error in the orders of eviction dated 11.3.2015 and 16.4.2014 on account of the factthat the petition was filed for eviction by the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) ofthe DRC Act while asthe order of eviction has been passed under Section 22 ofthe DRC Act and accordingly, the aforesaid orders be set aside and the V respondent be permitted to withdraw the petitions pending before the learned ARC with liberty to file a fresh petition under such relevant provisionofthe Rent Control Act as maybe permissible in law.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any objection.

3. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, the orders of eviction dated 11.3.2015 and 16.4.2014 passed by the learned ARC, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi are set aside and the respondent/landlord ispermitted to withdraw thepetitions filed before the learned ARC bearing E. Nos.35/14, 37/14, 40/13, 34/14 and36/14 titled The Buddhist Society ofIndia v^. Trish Pal Jain, The Buddhist Society ofIndia vs. Nasir Hussain, The Buddhist Society ofIndia vs. Dhan Kuman Jain & Anr., The Buddhist Society ofIndia vs. Asghar AH and The Buddhist Society of India vs. Salek Chand Jain respectively with^ liberty to the respondent/landlord to file a fresh petition under such provision ofthe DRC Act as may be permissible in law.

4. Withthese observations, all the petitions standdisposed of. V.K. SHALI, J. DECEMBER 14, 2015 'AA' Lt