Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 144 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Gurjoginder Singh vs Jaswant Kaur And Anr on 9 February, 1994
"In fact the peculiar facts clearly show
that petitioners have stepped into the shoes of
original landlord-owner. Consequently, if the
original landlord was duty bound for restoration of
possession, so would be the petitioners. They
cannot be placed in a better position that the
original landlords. They cannot reap the harvest
of any wrong that has been done. Reference in
this connection can well be made to the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurjoginder
Singh v. Jaswant Kaur, 1994(1) Rent control
Reporter 517. In the cited case the landlord got
possession in pursuance of an ex parte order of
eviction. He had again let out the premises. The
ex parte order of eviction was set aside. It was
held that the landlord is bound to re store the
possession and so the new tenant is also liable to
vacate the premises. The Supreme Court held :-
Chanda Sab vs Jamshed Khan And Others on 3 June, 1993
Same was the view that prevailed to the Karnataka
High Court in case of Chanda Sab v. Jamshed Khan, 1994(2)
Rent Law Reporter 292 ; ( Karnatka) 1994(1) RCR 4. In which it
16
has been held :-
Binayak Swain vs Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi And Another on 10 December, 1965
In view of above discussion and well settled
principle of law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and
Hon'ble High Courts the conclusions are obvious. The
principal of doctrine of restitution is applicable in the facts
of the case. Once the ex parte order of eviction has been
set aside the law is under obligation to restore the
19
possession to the party entitled for it. The person entitled
to restoration of the possession will have the right to get
back the property in the same condition as it was. Since,
the decree dated 16.11.2006 passed by my Ld.
Predecessor is null, void, nonest and without jurisdiction, the
same is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the
plaintiff/landlord is bound to restore back the possession to
the JDs/defendants and so the new tenant i.e. Sh. Tarun
Khandari is also liable to vacate the premises. Hence, the
objections filed by the JDs are maintainable and decree
dated 16.11.2006 is set aside, the defendants/JDs are
entitled for restoration of the suit property. Hence the
plaintiff/ Sh. Tarun Kandhari is hereby directed to restore
the suit property to the defendants/JDs within three months
from today. No order as to cost.