High Court of DelhiC.R.P./10/2017

Kaldeep Singh Brar Thr Its Attorney v. Basant Kumar Vadera Since Deceased Thr Its Lrs

2017-11-23Hon'Ble Mr. Justice R.K.Gauba2 pages

'1 $- 1 & 2 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ C.R.P. 10/2017 &CM APPL.1664/2017 & 23489/2017 KALDEEP SINGH BRAR THR ITS ATTORNEY Petitioner Through: Mr. K. S. Gahunia, Attorney of petitioner in person.

versus BASANT KUMAR VADERA SINCE DECEASED THR ITS LRS ....... Respondent Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate.

+ C.R.P. 11/2017 & CM APPL. 1675/2017 & 23685/2017 KALDEEP SINGH BRAR THR ITS ATTORNEY Petitioner Through: Mr. K. S. Gahunia, Attorney of petitioner in person.

versus BASANT KUMAR VADERA SINCE DECEASED THR ITS LRS .....Respondent Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

ORDER

% 23.11.2017

1. These two revision petitions arise out of similar orders passed by the Rent Controller on 14.09.20 16 on the files of two eviction petitions each preferred by the petitioner herein against the respective respondents seeking decrees of eviction from the demised premises under Sections 14(1)(b) and 14(1)(c) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Reference is made to certain admissions By:AMULYA

which statedly come up in reply to an application earlier moved seeking to bring on record certain additional documents. Having heard the attorney for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the opposite party, this Court finds no substance in the revision petitions. There are no clear, categorical, unequivocal or unambiguous admissions made on the basis of which a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) can be granted. Even otherwise, the prayer under Section 14(1)(c) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 would require the misuse of the premises to be strictly proved fulfilling the requirements of Section 14(5). The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out, and the attorney for the petitioner conceded that the cases have already reached the stage of final adjudication, the evidence having been already adduced by both sides.

In these circumstances, the petitions are dismissed. The pending applications also stand disposed of. RK.Gt1A, J NOVEMBER 23, 2017 1 -'

srb