Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.28 seconds)The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
N.C. Daga vs Inder Mohan Singh Rana on 5 December, 2002
Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Mange Ram v. Rajesh Narain Goel, in RC. REV. no. 147/2021, decided
on 19.03.2024 after following N.C. Daga v. Inder Mohan Singh Rana
and Vinod Kumar Verma v. Manmohan Verma, in Civil Appeal nos.
Vinod Kumar Verma vs Manmohan Verma & Anr on 19 August, 2008
13. As stated above, the jurisdiction of this Court exercising revisionary
powers is limited and circumspect. The Petitioner/tenant did not initiate
appropriate civil proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted
premises. The Petitioner/tenant has also not contended that Section 19 of
Act has been violated. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
NC Daga case and Vinod Kumar Verma case, this Court finds that this
Petition has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.
Smt Poonam Bangia vs Harbhagwan Dass Chandiramani on 22 July, 2021
5220 -5221/2008 passed by the Supreme Court and in Poonam Bangia
v. Harbhagwan Dass Chandiramani in RC. REV no. 16/2021 passed by
this Court as mentioned hereinabove also dismissed the revision
petition as became infructuous due to the reason that the possession
of the subject premises has been restored to the respondent/landlord.
Ram Avtar vs Smt Anuradha Shukla on 29 May, 2023
The relevant extract of the Ram
Avtar case reads as follows:
Section 14B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 14A in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Bhawani Shankar vs Nand Lal And Ors on 7 September, 2021
8. Various Coordinate Benches of this Court have also similarly held
that the tenant's Petition have become infructuous in view of possession
being taken. Reliance is placed on Neelam Sharma v. Ekant Rekhan3 and
Bhawani Shankar v Nand Lal and Ors.4.