| |
CDJ 2025 DHC 734
|
| Court : High Court of Delhi |
| Case No : CM(M). No. 1119 of 2022 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA |
| Parties : Kaval Bajaj Versus Suman Ghandiok & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Dr. Sumit Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: R2, Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 11-12-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
Delhi Rent Control Act - Section 14(1)(d) -
Comparative Citation:
2025 DHC 11215, |
| Summary :- |
Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 14(1)(d) Delhi Rent Control Act
- Order IX Rule 13 CPC
Catch Words:
- eviction
- settlement
- demand draft
- cost of articles
- restoration of eviction order
Summary:
The petitioner, a landlord, initially obtained an ex‑parte eviction order under Section 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against respondents 2‑4. The respondents challenged the order, leading to its setting aside by the Rent Control Tribunal. The parties subsequently reached a settlement wherein the petitioner paid Rs. 4,50,00,000 to respondent 2 for the cost of antiques left in the premises. Both sides consented to restore the original eviction order. The Court, satisfied that the dispute is fully settled, allowed the application and, with mutual consent, set aside the Tribunal’s order, thereby reinstating the Rent Controller’s eviction order. The petition and related applications are disposed of.
Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Order (Oral)
CM APPL. 78444/2025 (for disposal of petition)
1. This application, drafted by petitioner/landlord and countersigned by the present respondent no. 2 and counsel for all respondents, seeks disposal of the present petition on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. It appears that initially, an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(d) Delhi Rent Control Act was filed by the present petitioner and her sister, the present respondent no. 1 against the present respondents no. 2-4, which petition was allowed ex-parte. The present respondent no. 2 filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, so he filed an appeal, culminating into the impugned order, whereby the eviction order was set aside by the learned Rent Control Tribunal. Since the learned Rent Controller gave categorical findings that it is the present petitioner only who is owner of the subject premises, which findings were not opposed by her sister, the present respondent no. 1, the latter was impleaded in the appeal as well as in the present petition as one of the respondents. It is informed by both sides that the present respondent no. 1, Smt. Suman Ghandiok has passed away. It is also informed by both sides that the eviction order was executed prior to even filing of the present petition.
3. In the above backdrop, the parties have arrived at settlement, whereby the present petitioner/owner of the subject premises has handed over a demand draft of Rs.4,50,00,000/- in the name of present respondent no. 2, who accepts the same on behalf of respondents no.2-4, the erstwhile tenants. It is submitted by both sides that this amount of Rs.4,50,00,000/- is being paid to respondent no. 2 towards cost of the articles including the antiques left behind by the erstwhile tenants in the subject premises. After accepting the settlement amount, the respondents no. 2-4 through counsel submit that the present application may be allowed and the impugned order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal be set aside with consent, thereby restoring the eviction order passed by the Learned Rent Controller.
4. Respondent no. 2 is present in Court on behalf of all respondents and submits that the present application may be allowed. Respondent no. 2 has been handed over the demand draft of the settlement amount in Court.
5. Having spoken with both sides, I am satisfied that the present petition and the disputes between the parties stand completely settled by way of lawful settlement.
6. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and with consent of both sides, the order impugned in the present petition is set aside, thereby consequentially restoring the eviction order passed by the Learned Rent Controller.
CM(M) 1119/2022, CM APPL. 45286/2022, 54858/2023 & 43189/2024
7. The petition and the accompanying applications stand disposed of.
8. The date of 23.04.2026 stands cancelled.
|
| |
