Santosh & ANR v. Ram Prasad

$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 218/2018 & CMs 41490-91/2018 SANTOSH & ANR ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. V.K. Gautam and Mr. Nishant Sharma, Advocates versus RAM PRASAD .....Respondent Through:

Ms.Surbhi Gupta, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

O R D E R

% 05.10.2018 Received on transfer.

Impugned order of 29th August, 2018 dismisses petitioners' application for rejection of plaint by observing that petitioners in their reply to the Legal Notice have asserted that they are co-owners in the subject premises.

Learned counsel for petitioners draws attention of this Court to paragraph No.3 of the impugned order to point out that the stand of respondent-Plaintiff is that the rental of the subject premises is rupees five hundred per month. So, it is submitted that the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised in the suit lies with the Rent Controller and not with the Civil Court.

Upon hearing, I find that the plea of petitioners is that they are co-owners and therefore, petitioners' application has been rightly C.R.P. 218/2018

dismissed by trial court. Finding no substance, this petition and the applications are dismissed.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE OCTOBER 05, 2018 s C.R.P. 218/2018