✦ Delhi High Court

ABDUL HAMID v. AHSAN ILAHI & Ors.

REKHA SHARMA3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Remanded

Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Additional

Provisions considered

Judgment

Cause title

Through

Mr. T S Upadhyay, Advocate

versus

AHSAN ILAHI & ORS. ..... Respondent

Through

Mr. Sanjay Agnihotri with

Mr. Arvind Upadhyaya, Advocate

CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

O R D E R

% 26.11.2007 CM NO. 12565/2007 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/landlord had filed two separate petitions against the petitioner for eviction under Sections 14 (1) (e) and 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi rent Control Act, 1958. By a common judgment dated

18.10.2006, the Additional Rent Controller passed eviction orders on both the counts. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal in so far as the order pertaining to Section 14 (1) (h) is concerned. The Rent Control Tribunal vide its order dated

28.3.2007 remanded the case back to the Additional Rent Controller with the directions to determine whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Against the said order of the Tribunal, the landlord preferred Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same was dismissed in limine. The present Revision Petition has been preferred against the order of the Additional Rent Controller whereby eviction has been ordered against the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the issue whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been remanded to the Additional Rent Controller by the Rent Control Tribunal against the order passed under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, it would be appropriate if the present revision petition is disposed of with the direction to the Additional Rent Controller to decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the landlord has opposed the prayer. He submits that this Court should itself examine whether the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller is justified or not and that there is no occasion to remand the case back to the Additional Rent Control Tribunal. It is however not disputed by the counsel that the revision petition preferred against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal remanding the case back to the Additional Rent Controller to determine the issue whether there exists relationship of landlord and the tenant was dismissed by this Court. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that since the common issue arises both in the petition under Sections 14 (1) (e) and 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, it would be appropriate if this revision petition is disposed of with the direction to the Additional Rent Controller to determine the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in this case as well.

Operative part

Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Additional Rent Controller who shall determine the aforesaid issue along with case under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which is listed before Ms. Savita Rao, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, on 31.1.2008. The Additional Rent Controller will confine the inquiry limited only to relationship of the landlord and the tenant in terms of the directions of the Tribunal. REKHA SHARMA, J. NOVEMBER 26, 2007 PC.

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Additional

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Control Act, 1958; Constitution of India — art. 227; Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — ss. 14(1)(e), 14(1)(h).

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Delhi High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments