logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 DHC 734 print Preview print print
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,
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.

 
  CDJLawJournal