Tag: #DelhiHighCourt

-Report by A.K. Sooraj

The Delhi High Court in the case of  Rashmi Sehrawat vs Praveen Sehrawat held that the failure to comply with the orders of maintenance, even after giving several opportunities, amounts to contempt of court.

 FACTS:

The contempt petition was filed by the petitioner, wife stating that the Respondent, husband was in wilful disobedience and deliberate non-compliance with the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Mahila Court, New Delhi ( Trial Court), whereby the Respondent was directed to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 35,000, including rent, for the two minor sons and the Petitioner from the date of application to the disposal of the case. This contempt petition was filed by the Petitioner on 24.08.2020, given the absolute non-compliance of the said order dated 18.09.2019. The petition alleged that since the date of the order, the Respondent has not made any payments. The aforementioned order of 18.09.2019 had been challenged by both parties, and the cross-appeals were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in an order dated 12.11.2020. A finding was returned by the Appellate  Court that the monthly income of the Respondent is Rs. 65,000. The Appellant Court directed the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 5000 per month for the maintenance of each child and apart from that he was directed to pay Rs. 10000 per month for the school fees of each child. In addition, the Respondent was directed to pay Rs 10000 per month for the Petitioner towards the maintenance and Rs. 5000 towards the rent. The Appellate Court determined the sum total of the monthly amount of maintenance as Rs. 45000 subjects to the variation on account of school fees.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was Rs. 15,45,000 in maintenance arrears as of the current date for the petitioner and her young children. He said that this did not include the minor children’s unpaid school expenses. He claims that the Respondent in this case has a sizable rental revenue of 10–12 lakhs per month based on instructions from the Petitioner. According to him, the respondent in this case and his family are the owners of 32 units in Mahipalpur. He further refers to the Petitioner’s averments, which allege that the Respondent sold the Greater Noida villa for Rs. 49,00,000 in 2018. He claims that the Trial Court had directed the Respondent to present an account of the relevant transaction and specifics of how the relevant sum had been spent. He claims that the Respondent has purposefully disobeyed the aforementioned directive and has not yet supplied it. He added that the minor children were being harassed for fee demands and made fun of by the relevant school as a result of the Respondent’s actions in failing to pay their tuition on time.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The learned counsel for the Respondent claimed in a computation that the amount of arrears due and payable as of 01.02.2023 was Rs. 8,52,333. The Petitioner disputed the computation and the statement of payments attached, refusing to accept the entries made therein. On February 15, 2023, he restated his arguments from February 13 to the effect that the petitioner could not continue the current contempt proceedings since she had submitted an execution petition that was still being decided by the Trial Court. He also added that the non-compliance with the orders was not wilful or intentional. He claimed that despite his best efforts, the Respondent was unable to pay the arrears under the conditions of the maintenance order due to the Respondent’s meagre income.

JUDGEMENT:

The current matter has been listed 32 times. Even as of the date the decisions were reserved, the amount of accepted maintenance arrears owed by the Respondent was Rs. 8,52,333 (which, according to the Petitioner, should be Rs. 15,45,000). The Respondent had not made the payments of the admitted arrears even after repeatedly, seeking time from this Court to clear the same. the Respondent is a 50-year-old professional, holding a degree and therefore, in accordance with the judgement in Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine 1314, capable of earning and maintaining his wife and children. Respondent had numerous opportunities and undertakings, but he had failed to follow the maintenance directives. The Respondent was adjudged to have committed contempt of court and was subject to punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the Court was of the opinion that the Respondent was defiant and wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the undertakings made to the Court and orders made by the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and the Court in these proceedings. The Court sentenced the respondent, contemnor, Mr. Praveen Sehrawat, to undergo two months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000, and in default of the payment of the fine, he shall further undergo fifteen days of simple imprisonment. Following the judgement in Sonali Bhatia vs Abhivansh Narang, the Court directed that the Respondent exhibit his apology by complying with the orders of the Trial Court as modified by the Appellate Court, and directions issued by the Court makes payment of entire arrears of maintenance within ten (10) days and undertakes to continue to pay the maintenance until the order dated 12.11.2020 continues to remain in force, and tenders an unconditional apology to the Court, the Court shall consider recalling the punishment of Respondent undergoing simple imprisonment, provided the respondent complies with the aforesaid directions within 10 days. However, he was instructed to appear before the Jail Superintendent at the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, on April 20, 2023, if he does not abide by the aforementioned instruction within the time allotted.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3zOvT5X

-Report by Mehul Jain

It was held by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S THE COMMERICAL ELECTRIC WORKS & ORS VS SHARDA GUPTA that the Delhi High Court on April 06, while not changing the decision of Trial Court for giving landlady property to his grandson for bona fide needs. Because of the dicta of the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the issues raised by the Petitioner herein do not merit any interference and the finding of the Trial court does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition of the petitioner is dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.

FACTS

The judgment is made by the learned Single Judge bench on 06 April 2023. The judgment is given by “HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA”. This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners, tenants, assailing the eviction order dated 23.03.2019, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’), in Eviction Petition No. E-150/16 (New No. 15/17).

The Respondent, the landlady, is stated to be the owner of the entire property bearing No. 1814-1815, ward No. IV, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (‘subject property’) which comprises a Ground Floor (‘GF’), Mezzanine Floor, First Floor (‘FF’), Second Floor (‘SF’), and Third Floor (‘TF’).

The Respondent filed the eviction petition for recovery of the commercial premises being the ground floor, mezzanine floor, and third floor of property No. 1814-1815, ward No. IV, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (‘tenanted premises’) located in the subject property. The eviction petition was filed by the landlady on the plea that she has a bona fide need for her grandson i.e., Mr. Kanishk Gupta, who has recently graduated and wants to establish, run and operate his own business or join the landlady in her existing business and expand the said business, from the tenanted premises. It was asserted that there is no other commercial property owned by the landlady. However, before this Court, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has restricted his oral submissions to assail the findings concerning bona fide need on the plea that FF and SF of the subject property are lying vacant and are therefore, available to the landlady for the alleged business of her grandson. The Trial Court after considering the submissions of the parties held that the Respondent is the owner as well as landlady in respect of the tenanted premises. The Trial Court further held that the tenanted premises are bona fide and required for the business of the grandson. The Trial Court rejected the submission of the Petitioners herein that the landlady has suitable alternative accommodation on the FF and SF of the subject property. The Trial Court relied upon the photographs placed on record to opine that the FF and SF are in a dilapidated condition. The Trial Court, further, held that there is no parity between commercial premises located on the ground floor vis-à-vis upper floors. In light of the aforesaid facts and findings, the Trial Court rejected the application seeking leave to defend and passed the impugned eviction order.

PETITIONER CONTENTION

The petitioner’s counsel states that the tenanted premises are not bona fide required by the Respondent, landlady, since her grandson, for whose bona fide need the tenanted premises are required, is working as a relationship manager in the HDFC Bank branch at A-9, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi.

Petitioner states that the FF and SF of the subject property were recovered by the Respondent, landlady, in May 2013, in an eviction petition (E106/13/09) filed by her under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. In this regard, he has placed on record the electricity bill issued by BSES Yamuna Power Limited (‘BSES’) for the meters installed on the said floors, to show the negligible consumption of electricity in the said premises. 

He relies upon the Petitioners’ averments recorded in the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by this Court, whilst issuing notice in the present petition. Petitioner states that the non-use of the FF and SF by the Respondent belies the plea of bona fide need and the Trial Court erred in dismissing the leave to defend the application.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent, the landlady, states that currently, both, the Respondent’s son i.e., Mr. Manish Gupta and grandson i.e., Mr. Kanishk Gupta are unemployed. Both the grandson was employed before but they leave their job for operating or running the business.

He states that the landlady along with her daughter-in-law i.e., Ms. Madhu Gupta had started the business of sale of women’s wear under the name and style of ‘Kanishk Sarees’ in the year 2014, from the FF of the subject property. He states that however, the said business has failed as customers are unwilling to come to FF in the subject property. However, FF and SF are unsuitable for new businesses.

He states that the Petitioners herein have abused the procedural safeguards to delay the hearing in the present revision proceedings. He states that even during the adjudication of the eviction petition, though the leave to defend application was filed, however, a copy of the same was not provided to the landlady for almost 3 years.

COURT’S DECISION

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the decision of the Trial Court was correct and there is no need to change or revision of that judgment. So, the Hon’ble High Court gives the judgment in the favour of Respondent. And the Hon’ble High Court referred the case which is related to this matter as “Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30”[2].

The subject eviction petition was filed much later on 26.12.2016 and for the bona fide need of the grandson, which in this opinion of this Court has rightly upheld by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Abid-ul-Islam (Supra) has after discussing the law held that the scope of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is limited.

Accordingly, because of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed and the eviction order dated 23.03.2019 is upheld. The pending applications are disposed of. The interim order dated 06.09.2019 is hereby vacated. The Respondent is at liberty to proceed with the execution of the eviction order and the Petitioners will be liable to continue to pay the use and occupation charges at Rs. 15,000/- per month, until the handing over of the possession to the Respondent.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40SpfYo

-Report by Himanshi

The recent judgement of Shri Mukund Bhatia vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & ORS is concerned with the grant of Letters of Administration / Probate of the Will in respect of the immovable properties left behind by the Paternal Aunt of the petitioner.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

The Paternal Aunt of the petitioner, Kumari Lajja Bhatia (hereinafter referred to as “The Testatrix”) was a permanent resident of 17/14, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi – 110060. She expired as a spinster, leaving behind her nephew, petitioner herein; her brother, respondent no.2 herein; the wife and two sons of her pre-deceased brother, impleaded as respondent no.3 herein; and her sister, respondent no.4 herein.

The above-mentioned property acquired by Testatrix was a self-acquired property of her late father and by the virtue of the Will executed by him; the said property was bequeathed to the Testatrix. Thereafter, upon the death of the Testatrix, the said property has devolved upon the petitioner as per the Will, dated 15.01.2020, executed by her.

During her lifetime, she also purchased other immovable property in Pitampura, Delhi with a Conveyance deed dated 29.07.2004. As per the terms of the subject Will, the property is to be divided in the following manner:-

• 70% share of the said property shall devolve upon the petitioner;
• The remaining 30% share shall devolve upon Respondent No. 5 which is a religious trust.

Therefore, the present petition has been filed in the court with reference to sections 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking the Probate of Will executed by the Testatrix in respect of the immovable properties left behind by her.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

• The learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that during her lifetime she had executed the subject Will dated 15.01.2020 in the presence of two attesting witnesses namely Shri Vijay Vasandani and Shri Ashok Pohuja.
• The learned counsel also provides the details of the moveable assets in the form of fixed deposits, PPF and shares left behind by the Testatrix.
• They further contended that as per the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner, Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were duly served. However, despite service, they failed to appear. Thereby, their right to file objections has been closed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial).
• The learned counsel further states that respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit giving his ‘No Objection’ for the transfer of property in favour of the petitioner as per the Will dated 15.01.2020.

Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is an uncontended case.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The petition is not contested by Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 to 5 has failed to appear despite service.

JUDGEMENT:

The Delhi HC in its judgement relied upon sec 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which provides that where a document is required by the law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for proving its execution. In the present case, the two attesting witnesses approved that Late Kumari Lajja Bhatia had signed the Will in their presence. They further stated that the subject Will was executed by her voluntarily and when she was in sound disposing of mind. Hence, the requirements of Section 68 of the Act were fulfilled.

Apart from this, a citation was also directed to be published in two daily newspapers in the NCT of Delhi, Pune, Mumbai and Jaipur. No Objection has been received from any third person to grant Probate of Will dated 15.01.2020 in favour of the petitioner.

Considering all these facts, Delhi HC in this particular case held that the unchallenged and rebutted testimony of the petitioner which is supported by the testimony of the two attesting witnesses proves the authenticity of the Will dated 15.01.2020. Thereby, the petitioner being the nephew and beneficiary is entitled to the Probate of Will.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3o0tKBK

-Report by Harshit Yadav

This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in MACT No. 50797/2016. The case involves the death of Naresh due to injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 08.05.2014 in front of the NDPL office, inside Shiv Vihar Road, Karala road, Delhi. Naresh was driving his engine-fitted rickshaw thela when a Tata Tempo, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the rickshaw thela with great force. Due to the impact, Naresh fell and sustained grievous injuries which resulted in his death. An FIR was registered at PS Kanjhawala. The main issues involved in this appeal are whether the compensation awarded towards “loss of consortium” is justified and proper and whether the compensation awarded towards “loss of love and affection” would be payable or not.

FACTS

The case involves the death of Naresh, who died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident on 08.05.2014. Naresh was driving his engine-fitted rickshaw thela when suddenly a Tata Tempo bearing registration no. HR-46D-0998, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the rickshaw thela of the deceased with great force. Due to the impact, Naresh fell and sustained grievous injuries which resulted in his death. The main issues involved in this appeal are whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards “loss of consortium” is justified and proper and whether the compensation awarded towards “loss of love and affection” would be payable or not. The appellant’s counsel argued that the compensation towards the non-pecuniary heads shall be Rs. 70,000/- only in a lump sum and that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side and should be reduced to 6% per annum. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the respondents.

ISSUES RAISED

a) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards “loss of consortium” is justified and proper?

b) Whether the compensation awarded towards “loss of love and affection” would be payable or not?

CONTENTIONS

The appellant argues that the learned Tribunal has erroneously awarded compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. They contend that as per recent judgments and prevailing law, compensation towards loss of love and affection should not have been awarded. Furthermore, the compensation awarded towards the loss of consortium is excessive, and only the widow of the deceased is entitled to such compensation. The appellant also contends that the rate of interest awarded is on the higher side and should be reduced.

The respondent argues that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is justified and proper. They contend that as per settled law, compensation towards loss of consortium should be awarded to all the claimants, including the children of the deceased. Furthermore, compensation towards loss of love and affection is also payable as per recent judgments. The respondent also contends that the rate of interest awarded is appropriate and should not be reduced.

JUDGEMENT

Based on the facts presented, the appeal was filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against an award passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in MACT No. 50797/2016. The appeal sought to challenge the compensation awarded towards “loss of consortium” and “loss of love and affection.”

The accident occurred on May 8, 2014, in front of the NDPL office on Shiv Vihar Road, Karala road, Delhi, where the deceased was driving his engine-fitted rickshaw thela. A Tata Tempo, driven by the offending vehicle’s driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the rickshaw thela, resulting in the deceased falling and sustaining grievous injuries, leading to his death. An FIR was registered at PS Kanjhawala under sections 279/304A IPC.

After hearing the counsel for the appellant and reviewing the award, the court found that the compensation awarded towards “loss of consortium” was justified and proper, as per the settled law that all claimants are entitled to compensation under this head. However, regarding the compensation awarded towards “loss of love and affection,” the court referred to the judgment of National Insurance Co Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. and reduced the compensation to Rs. 70,000/- only in a lump sum to be payable only to the widow of the deceased. The court also reduced the rate of interest from 9% to 6% per annum.

Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal in part, reduced the compensation awarded towards “loss of love and affection” to Rs. 70,000/- payable only to the widow of the deceased, and reduced the rate of interest to 6% per annum.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/42OTwbY

-Report by Sejal Jethva

In the matter of BHUSHAN KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. vs. RAJINDER KUMAR GUPTA, Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, the drawl of a preliminary decree of partition with regard to property is requested.

FACTS

The late Sh. Hem Chander Gupta unquestionably bought the suit property on September 12, 1976. The following information about Sh. Hem Chander Gupta’s wife and five boys who he is said to have left behind after his intestate death on December 31, 1999: –

i. Smt. Premwati Gupta

ii. Shri Mange Ram Gupta

 iii. Shri Rajinder Kumar Gupta

 iv. Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta

v. Shri Satish Chander Gupta

 vi. Mr. Bhushan Kumar Gupta

On July 12, 2018, the mother, Premwati Gupta, also passed away intestate. Her 1/6th undivided portion in the suit property, therefore, passed to her five surviving sons, and the plaintiffs claim that as a result, each of the five surviving sons acquired a 1/5th undivided stake in the suit property.

According to reports, Sh. Mange Ram Gupta, the oldest son of the late Sh. Hem Chander Gupta and Smt. Premwati Gupta gave his daughter-in-law Smt. Shalini Gupta his 1/5th undivided share. It is important to highlight that the plaintiffs in the current lawsuit are Sh. Santosh Kumar Gupta, Sh. Satish Chander Gupta, Sh. Bhushan Kumar Gupta, and Smt. Shalini Gupta. Only Sh. Rajender Kumar Gupta, the other son of the late Sh. Hem Chander Gupta and Smt. Premwati Gupta, and Smt. Premwati Gupta, are opposed to the relief for division.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The plaintiffs addressed the defendant to request a mutually agreeable division of the subject property, with each party having a right to a 1/5th portion. It is claimed that the plaintiffs approached the defendants regarding a partition that would be impacted by metes and bounds. The current lawsuit was filed on April 18, 2022, as a result of the aforementioned request not being granted.

 Learned lawyers appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs argued that, given the accepted position in the parties’ briefs that the property was itself acquired, the plea of ​​oral division could be clearly rejected. Furthermore, since the property was acquired by the father of the parties himself and he remained the owner during his lifetime, there could have been no division, at least until his death, according to which the property could have been divided between his legal heirs. It was also claimed that if the father wished at all, the property could have been transferred either by gift or by transfer. It was argued that neither the plea of ​​oral division nor the plea of ​​such division raised by the father while he was alive could possibly stand.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

In these proceedings, the defendant has submitted a written statement. It is important to note that the written declaration does not contest the fact that the suit property was bought by the late Sh. Hem Chander Gupta. The property would unquestionably be seen as having been bought by the late Sh. Hem Chander Gupta on his own. The sole argument put out is that the late Sh. Hem Chander Gupta, who was the Class-1 legal heir, requested all of his sons during his lifetime to divide the suit property on or around March 1999. According to the defendant, parties agreed to an equitable split of the suit property and that an oral partition came about at that time.

JUDGEMENT

1. The Court is adamant that the presented defence is completely unworthy of consideration after giving it full attention. The defendant has not provided any evidence to support how an oral partition could have been created or established during the father’s lifetime. It was also uncontested that the fathers of the parties were the only ones to obtain the land.

2. As a result, a preliminary partition decree for the property at 14/1 Shakti Nagar, Delhi, is issued, designating plaintiffs Bhushan Kumar Gupta, Satish Chander Gupta, Santosh Kumar Gupta, Shalini Gupta, and defendant Rajinder Kumar Gupta as each owning a fifth undivided portion of the property.

3. The creation of a preliminary decision for division.

4. It is regarded as necessary to give the parties some time to decide if they can divide the property by metes and bounds. If not, a definitive decree of partition and/or sale of the property, including through the parties placing inter se bids, shall be made on the next hearing date.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3K7WYXO

-Report by Harshit Yadav

The present case involves a revision petition filed by tenants who are challenging an eviction order passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller in Delhi. The landlord had filed an eviction petition on the grounds of the bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises, which is a shop measuring 83.4 sq. ft. The landlord, who owns the subject property, which consists of ground-floor shops, had been running his business in one of the shops, which was not sufficient for his business requirements. The tenants, in their application seeking leave to defend, had failed to raise any triable issues, and the court had dismissed their application and passed the eviction order in favor of the landlord. The tenants have challenged the order on the grounds that the landlord has sufficient alternate suitable accommodation for carrying on his business from other shops in the same property and has no bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises.

FACTS:

A revision petition was filed by tenants against an eviction order passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller in Delhi. The tenants were occupying shop no. 3 on the ground floor of a property owned by the landlord. The landlord had filed an eviction petition on the grounds of the bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for expanding his business of sale of utensils. The tenants had challenged the eviction order by stating that the landlord had sufficient alternative accommodation for his business, but the Trial Court had dismissed their application seeking leave to defend. The present revision petition has been filed against the said order. The document contains the submissions of the parties, relevant facts, and the findings of the Court.

ISSUES RAISED:

Whether the Petitioners’ leave to defend failed to raise any triable issues and the contents of the said application failed to rebut the presumption of bona fide requirement of the Respondent?

Whether the Respondent has no bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises as he has sufficient pension income post-retirement and has possession of shop nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the subject property?

Whether the plea of the Respondent that he intends to carry on business from the tenanted premises is a triable issue, which the Trial Court ought to have appreciated and thus granted the leave to defend?

Whether shop nos. 1 and 2, being used by the sons of the Respondent for carrying out their separate and independent businesses, are not available to the Respondent to carry on his own business and thus, the tenanted premises are required by the Respondent for properly keeping his stock so as to display the same and invite customers, as the space available in the existing shop no. 4 is grossly insufficient?

CONTENTIONS:

The Petitioners’ counsel contended that the Respondent has no bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises as he has sufficient pension income post-retirement, and he has possession of shop nos. 1, 2, and 4 in the subject property. Therefore, the Respondent has alternate suitable accommodation for carrying on his business. However, the Respondent’s counsel submitted that shop nos. 1 and 2 are being used by his sons for carrying out their independent businesses, and shop no. 4, which the Respondent uses for his business, is very small in size. He stated that the Respondent needs the tenanted premises to display his stock properly and invite customers.

The Court considered the submissions of both parties and perused the record. It held that the Respondent has a bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for expanding his business, as shop no. 4, where he currently operates his business, is not sufficient for him. The Court also noted that the Respondent’s sons are using shops nos. 1 and 2 for their independent businesses, and shop no. 4 is too small for the Respondent’s business. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Petitioners’ revision petition and upheld the eviction order passed by the Trial Court in favour of the Respondent.

JUDGEMENT:

In this case, the tenants have filed a revision petition challenging the eviction order passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller in RC ARC No. 5589/16, whereby the Petitioners’ application seeking leave to defend was dismissed, and the impugned eviction order was passed in favor of the landlord with respect to shop no.3.

The Respondent, the landlord, filed an eviction petition for the recovery of the tenanted premises, which abuts his shop no.4, as it was not sufficient for carrying on his business. The Trial Court found that the Petitioners’ leave to defend failed to raise any triable issues and the contents of the said application failed to rebut the presumption of bona fide requirement of the Respondent.

The learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that the Respondent has no bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises, as he has sufficient pension income post-retirement and has alternate suitable accommodation for carrying on his business. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that shop nos. 1 and 2 are being used by the sons of the Respondent for their independent businesses, and shop no.4, which admeasures 8.5 sq. ft, is being used by the Respondent for running his independent sale of utensils etc.

After considering the submissions of the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the Respondent has a bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises. Admittedly, shop nos. 1 and 2 are being used by the sons of the Respondent for their independent businesses, and shop no.4, which admeasures 8.5 sq. ft, is being used by the Respondent for running his independent sale of utensils etc.

The Respondent has stated that the tenanted premises are required for properly keeping his stock so as to display the same and invite customers, as the space available in the existing shop no. 4 is grossly insufficient. This Court finds that the Respondent has a genuine need for the tenanted premises, and the Petitioners have failed to raise any triable issues in this regard.

Therefore, this Court upholds the impugned eviction order passed by the Trial Court and dismisses the present revision petition filed by the Petitioners. The Respondent is entitled to possession of the tenanted premises. The Petitioners are directed to hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the Respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3JVacal

-Report by Radhika Mittal

This is a case about an eviction notice issued by the Public Welfare Department for the land occupied by the Appellant, which is a Trust established for the purpose of maintaining a Shiv Temple and Gaushala located in New Delhi. This case delves into the rights of the aggrieved slum dwellers as well as the statutory adherence to government policy.

FACTS :

The Appellant is aggrieved by the Eviction Notice and filed a petition seeking quashing of the Impugned Notice and the issuance of appropriate directions prohibiting the Respondents from carrying out demolition/evacuation proceedings in the said premises.

The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the petition, found that the premises in question do not come within the jhuggi cluster which has been notified as per the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the occupants of the premises were not entitled to protection from demolition.

Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant filed an instant appeal. The Appellant contends that the cow shelter and temple have been present on the said premises for more than 15 years and that the Impugned Notice is illegal and arbitrary. The Respondent, on the other hand, has defended the Impugned Order by bringing to the attention of this Court that the place where the premises exist does not come within any notified cluster as notified under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Relocation Policy, 2015.

The Court analyzed the said Policy and held that in order to get the benefit of the said Policy, a jhuggi jhopri basti cluster defined under the Act ought to have been in existence prior or 01.01.2006 and the person should have constructed his jhuggi within the cluster prior to 01.01.2015. The Court held that the premises in question do not come within any notified cluster and, therefore, the demolition cannot be stayed for the said premises.

CONTENTIONS :

This is an appeal against an order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the Appellant challenging an eviction notice issued by the Respondent Public Welfare Department for the land occupied by the Appellant’s Trust, which runs a Shiv Temple and Gaushala, and provides shelter to ailing, old and abandoned cows. The notice was issued to all occupants of the premises, including the Appellant’s Trust, directing them to vacate the premises within 15 days. The eviction notice stated that if the occupants failed to do so, they would be removed and relocated to a Shelter Home at Dwarka, Geeta Colony, where they could reside for a period of 3 months. The Single Judge found that the premises did not come within the jhuggi cluster that had been notified under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, and therefore the occupants were not entitled to protection from demolition. The Single Judge directed the Respondent to allot an alternate accommodation for the cow shelter within a week, and further that such alternate cow shelter would be exempt from the maximum stay period of three months. The Appellant challenged this order in the instant appeal, arguing that the cow shelter and temple have been present on the said premises for more than 15 years and that the eviction notice is illegal and arbitrary. The Respondent argued that the place where the premises exist does not come within any notified cluster as notified under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, and therefore the demolition cannot be stayed for the said premises.

JUDGEMENT :

The court heard both parties and perused the material on record, including the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, and the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010, and held that in order to get the benefit of the said Policy, a jhuggi jhopri basti cluster defined under the Act, ought to have been in existence prior or 01.01.2006 and the person should have constructed his jhuggi within the cluster prior to 01.01.2015. A survey was conducted to identify various clusters which were entitled to get the benefit of the said Policy. The court found that the premises in question did not come within any notified cluster and the occupants were not entitled to protection from demolition. However, the court directed the Respondent to allot an alternate accommodation for the cow shelter within a week, and such alternate cow shelter would be exempt from the maximum stay period of three months.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40glb3l

-Report by Sejal Jethva

The parties involved in this case are SUBHASH SOLANKI (Appellant) and DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD & ORS. (Respondents). The appellant is allegedly occupying the store illegally and it is claimed that he continued to run his business out of the aforementioned shop after his father passed away and that no one else took over the operation.

FACTS:

The business in dispute was reportedly given to the appellant’s father in 1976 when he was just 14 years old. According to the claim, the appellant was not aware of the terms and circumstances of the allotment at the time of his father’s death in 2009, and as a result, he was unable to submit an application to change the name of the business in question as his father’s legitimate heir. According to the claim, the father of the appellant died away on July 1, 2010, and that day the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board was established.

It is claimed that the appellant kept operating his company out of the aforementioned shop following the death of the father and that no one else took over the operation.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The skilled attorney for the appellant claims that just a possession slip has been given to the appellant’s father in relation to the store in question, and no official allocation letter has been issued in his favour. It is argued that the appellant was unable to request a shop’s modification since he was not aware of the terms and circumstances of the allotment.

The knowledgeable Attorney for the Appellant further asserts that there is no disputing the fact that the Appellant’s father owned the store in question, hence the DUSIB had no difficulty transferring ownership of the shop to the Appellant.

The learned attorney representing the appellant claims that the DUSIB’s policy should be to grant mutation in favour of the legal heirs if there is no dispute regarding who is the initial allottee’s legal heirs so that they can make a living from the store or property that had been allocated to the initial allottee.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

In contrast, Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, knowledgeable Counsel representing the DUSIB, argued that not only had it been established that the original allottee had entered into an agreement to hire or transfer the appellant to the shop in question, but also that the shop had undergone significant unpermitted construction. The knowledgeable attorney for the DUSIB further notes that shop No. 38, which is currently occupied by the appellant, was also discovered to have been amalgamated with shop No. 37, which is obviously against the terms of allotment and the policy under which the shop was initially allotted to the allottee.

The knowledgeable Attorney for DUSIB also asserts that following the death of his father, the appellant never requested a formal allocation of the store in issue from the authorities.

The evidence on file demonstrates that the Appellant was the subject of proceedings under Sections 41/42 of the DUSIB Act, 2010 for eviction from the aforementioned store. Records show that the in-issue store was given on a licensee fee basis and that the sale or purchase of the shop was prohibited under the terms and circumstances.

JUDGEMENT:

1. The appellant in this case currently resides in Shop No.38 Block-4, Dakshinpuri Extn., New Delhi, and his wife Meena Solanki currently resides in Shop No.37 Block-4, Dakshinpuri Extn., New Delhi. According to documents, one Sh. Ram Lal S/o Sh. Giasi Ram was given this business on a licensee fee basis in 1976. The sale or purchase of the shop is prohibited under the terms and conditions. During a study by the DUSIB survey unit, it was discovered that the shop had been sold to the original allottee, that it had been combined with Shop No. 37, and that there had been extensive unlawful development up to five floors and encroachment on departmental land. The store is being illegally occupied by

2. The learned Single Judge declined to overturn the authorities’ contemporaneous conclusions. The following are the briefly listed requirements for allocation:

1. “a) The sole basis for the allocation was a license;
2. The allotment was made for commercial use and not for residential purposes;
3. the allottee(s) do not have any right to transfer, alienate, or in any other way dispose of the allotted shop(s) in favour of a third party;
4. the allottee(s) do not have any right to carry out structural additions or alterations in the premises without prior written permission from the DUSIB; and
5. as a matter of public policy

3. As a result, the appeal is rejected together with any outstanding applications, if any.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3ZWH881

–Report by Harshit Yadav

In the case of Raj Kumar Versus. The State, National Capital Territory Of Delhi, the petitioner/applicant, Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, has been accused of pushing his sister-in-law off the terrace of her matrimonial house, resulting in grievous injuries. The victim has alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws for dowry and was restrained from communicating with her parents and husband. The applicant denied the allegations and claimed that the victim had jumped off the terrace herself. The court has dismissed the applicant’s previous bail applications, and the present application is being heard.

FACTS:

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 512/2022 under Sections 307/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at PS Ranhola, New Delhi. The FIR was registered on June 21, 2022, after a PCR call was received at PS Ranhola, Delhi regarding a lady (complainant) falling from the roof of her matrimonial house. Upon receiving information, the SDM Punjabi Bagh reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim. The victim alleged that she had married Mr. Ram Kumar and Rs. 2.5 lakhs were paid as dowry. After her marriage, she was taunted, beaten, and threatened for dowry as well as restrained from communicating and or meeting with her parents and husband. The victim has alleged that on June 21, 2022, by reason of her request to meet her mother, the present applicant, Mr. Raj Kumar Singh (brother-in-law) along with other accused persons namely, Nempal Singh (father-in-law), Mamta (mother-in-law), & Monica (sister-in-law) dragged her to the terrace and pushed her from there. During the course of investigation, the statement of an eyewitness, Ms. Babita was recorded, she stated that the complainant herself jumped from the roof. However, during the further course of the investigation, the said eyewitness retracted her previous statement. During the investigation, Call Detail Records were obtained & analyzed as well as a supplementary statement of the complainant was also recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. After the completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The present applicant had filed two bail applications, which were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05 and learned Additional Sessions Judge-09. The present application seeks grant of regular bail.

ISSUES RAISED:

Whether the petitioner/applicant is entitled to be granted regular bail under Sections 439 and 482 of the CrPC in FIR No. 512/2022 under Sections 307/498A/34 of the IPC.

Whether the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment against the petitioner/applicant and other co-accused persons are true or false.

Whether the complainant jumped from the terrace of her matrimonial home or was pushed by the petitioner/applicant and other co-accused persons.

Whether the eyewitness, Ms. Babita, retracted from her previous statement due to any pressure or influence from the petitioner/applicant and other co-accused persons.

Whether the supplementary statement of the complainant under Section 161 of CrPC and the call records support the allegations made against the petitioner/applicant and other co-accused persons.

Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to Ms. Monica, the wife of the petitioner/applicant, is relevant to the present case.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The applicant’s counsel has contended that the allegations are false and no specific allegations have been made against the present applicant. They have argued that the complainant herself jumped off the terrace, and this has been corroborated by an eye witness. They have also pointed out that the complainant’s husband has not been accused in the case.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The prosecution, on the other hand, has argued that there is sufficient evidence to establish the involvement of the present applicant in the crime. They have presented the complainant’s statement alleging cruelty and dowry demands by the accused, corroborated by the supplementary statement of an eye witness. They have also cited the recovery of three handwritten slips thrown by the complainant, requesting help from her relatives, and the admission of the complainant in her additional statement that she communicated with her family through the accused’s phone.

JUDGEMENT:

In this case, the petitioner/applicant has sought regular bail in FIR No. 512/2022 under Sections 307/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at PS Ranhola, New Delhi. The petitioner is accused of pushing his sister-in-law from the terrace of her matrimonial home, among other charges.

The court has considered the facts of the case, including the statement of the victim, who alleges that she was taunted, beaten, and threatened for dowry, and was restrained from communicating or meeting with her parents and husband. The victim has also alleged that the present applicant, along with other accused persons, dragged her to the terrace and pushed her from there.

During the course of the investigation, an eye witness initially stated that the complainant had jumped from the roof, but later retracted her statement and stated that the complainant was hanging from the roof and fell down due to a loosening of her grip. The complainant admitted to communicating with her mother, brother, and husband through the phone of the present applicant and his wife, and stated that her relatives witnessed her being abused and misbehaved at the hands of the present applicant and his family. She further stated that the present applicant, along with the other co-accused persons, threw her from the terrace after she expressed a desire to leave her matrimonial home.

The court has also considered the fact that the present applicant’s wife, Ms. Monica, was granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge-09, Tis Hazari Courts.

Based on the above facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature and require further investigation. The court further notes that the applicant’s previous bail applications have been dismissed by the competent courts.

The court, therefore, finds no ground to grant regular bail to the present applicant at this stage. The application is dismissed

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3JMlYDP

-Report by

The present case concerns a writ petition filed by the wife of a deceased physical education
teacher seeking the release of outstanding dues payable to her late husband on account of pay
revision under the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations. The petitioner’s
husband was the sole bread earner of the family, and all his legal heirs were dependent on
him. The petitioner alleged that despite repeated requests, the school had not released the
arrears of salary and allowances owed to her husband. The respondents, including the school
and the Directorate of Education, did not dispute the petitioner’s claim to the outstanding dues
payable to her husband. The court allowed the writ petition and directed the school to
calculate and disburse the outstanding dues to the petitioner within four weeks from the date
of the order.

Facts:

The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the release of outstanding dues
payable to her late husband, who was working as a Physical Education Teacher at the National
Public School for over 30 years. Her husband died due to fatal injuries sustained in an
accident on 10.08.2022, leaving behind the petitioner and his legal heirs, who were dependent
on him. The petitioner’s grievance was that the school had not granted the benefits of pay
revision under the 7th Pay Commission (CPC) and released the arrears of salary and allowances
of her late husband.

Issue:

The issue raised in the present writ petition was the non-grant of benefits of pay revision
under 7th CPC and the release of arrears of salary and allowances of the petitioner’s late
husband by the school.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

The petitioner in this case, the wife of a deceased physical education teacher, contended that
her husband was entitled to receive the benefits of pay revision under the 7th Central Pay
Commission (CPC) recommendations, as directed by circulars issued by the Directorate of
Education. She alleged that despite repeated requests from her son, the school had not
released the arrears of salary and allowances owed to her husband, who was the sole bread
earner of the family.

Respondent’s Contentions:

On the other hand, the respondents, including the school and the Directorate of Education,
did not dispute the petitioner’s claim to the outstanding dues payable to her husband.
However, they requested the petitioner to provide any additional information or documents
required by the school to release the payments. They also argued that the grant of benefits of
pay revisions under the Central Pay Commissions’ Recommendations and the consequent
fixation of pay scales etc. of employees of recognized private schools at par with employees
of the corresponding status in schools run by Appropriate Authority, by virtue of provisions of
Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, was not in dispute, citing relevant court
judgments.

Judgment:

The court allowed the writ petition and recorded the assurance given on behalf of
Respondents No.1 to 3 that all outstanding dues payable to the petitioner’s husband on
account of pay revision under the 7th CPC shall be released within four weeks from the date of
the judgment. The court also directed that the calculations of the amounts disbursed to the
petitioner shall be furnished to her to enable her to ascertain if anything further remains to be
paid. In case the petitioner finds that any balance amounts are payable, she is at liberty to
approach the school management in this regard and, in case of any surviving grievance, she
may take recourse to remedies available to her in accordance with the law. The court disposed of
the writ petition in the aforesaid terms.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Tbtj2R