Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.32 seconds)The Delhi Rent Act, 1995
Joginder Singh vs Harminder Singh Chowdhary on 13 March, 2019
29. For the reasons aforesaid, we are therefore of the view
that the High Court has acted illegally and with material
RCT ARCT/11/2022 CNR No.: DLWT010093182022 Page 10 of 21
Joginder Singh Vs. Harminder Singh Chowdhary Judgement dt. 7.2.2024
irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in affirming the
order of the Additional Rent Controller whereby the
Additional Rent Controller had allowed the application for
setting aside the order of eviction and restored the
application for leave to contest the eviction proceeding
when such power, in our view, was not conferred on the
Rent Controller to entertain such an application filed by the
tenant/respondent.
Director Directorate Of Education & Anr vs Mohd. Shamim & Ors on 29 November, 2019
28. Therefore, in view of our discussions made herein
earlier and in view of our findings that there was no reason
for us not to rely on the decision of Prakash H. Jain (supra),
only because that decision was rendered under the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, whereas the present case has
been filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, but on
comparing the aforesaid two Acts and in view of the
observations and principles laid down by this Court in
Prakash H. Jain (supra), as noted herein earlier, we are of
the view that the provisions under the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act and the provisions under the Delhi Rent Control
Act are pari materia and therefore, the decision in the case
of Prakash H. Jain (supra) practically overrules the decision
of the Delhi High Court reported in Mohd. Quresh (supra)
and Gurditta Mal (supra).
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
Prakash H. Jain vs Ms. Marie Fernandes on 23 September, 2003
In our view, the High Court, while deciding
the present case had failed to notice that the decision in
Gurditta Mal (supra) was considered in the subsequent
decision of this Court in the case of Prakash H Jain v. Ms.
Marie Fernandes (AIR 2003 SC 4591).