Sh Jitender Kumar Shrivastav vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 19 July, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sh Jitender Kumar Shrivastav vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 19 July, 2021

Bench: Yogesh Khanna

                                $~54
                                *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                +    W.P.(CRL) 1283/2021
                                     SH JITENDER KUMAR SHRIVASTAV                   ..... Petitioner
                                                       Through: Mr.Deepak K. Tyagi, Advocate.
                                                       versus
                                     THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
                                                       Through: Mr.Avinder Singh, ASC for State.
                                     CORAM:
                                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
                                                       ORDER

% 19.07.2021

1. The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. CRL.M.A.10866/2021

2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 1283/2021

4. This Writ petition is filed for quashing of FIR No.32/2021 under Sections 448/420/120B IPC registered at PS Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

5. The facts of the case are the property bearing No.C/2/8, 2nd floor, Paschim Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, was to be taken on lease by one Mr.Dhakolia and the negotiations were going on between the erstwhile owner namely Ms.Parika Choudhary and Mr.Dhakolia.

6. Ms.Parika though agreed to let out the property to Mr.Dhakolia but insisted on a lease deed to be registered. Mr.Dhakolia paid the rent through RTGS for two or three months but did not came forward for registration of lease deed. It is stated this petitioner in December, 2020 allegedly paid the rent of the premises through RTGS, the proof thereof in annexed on record at page 62 and claimed himself to be a tenant of the premises in question.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:20.07.2021 13:24

There is no other document in favour of the petitioner in the entire paper book to show he was a tenant in the premises in dispute.

7. The learned ASC for the State submits a mere payment of rent by anyone on behalf of the actual tenant would not create any tenancy in favour of such person who actually paid the rent. The allegation in the FIR reveal he had no right to stay in the premises yet he entered into the premises on the basis of payment made on account of Mr.Dhakolia and did not vacate it till after the registration of the FIR.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner was put in the possession of the premises by the owner herself. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner require evidence and hence in this Writ petition these issues cannot be decided. The petition thus has no merits.

9. The petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

JULY 19, 2021 DU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:20.07.2021 13:24

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders