CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1999) 08 DEL CK 0018

Shobha Mehta vs Arjun Lal

Delhi High Court · Decided on 9 August 1999 · Citation: (1999) 5 AD 253 : (1999) 81 DLT 489 : (1999) 51 DRJ 109 : (1999) ILR Delhi 262 : (1999) RLR 509

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Jain, J
CASE NUMBER
SAO No. 295/85

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 365 words

Vijender Jain, J.—This petition was filed u/s 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by Smt. Shobha Mehta. She had purchased the property from one Shri Ram Lal vide registered sale-deed dated 7.11.1979, the same is Ex.AW 1/2. That petition found favor with the Addl. Rent Controller who passed a preliminary order u/s 14(1)(k) on 14.9.1984 and after giving opportunities to the L&DO and taking into consideration the statement of L&DO on account of misuse charges and that further misuse was not allowed, passed an order u/s 14(1)(k) directing the tenant/respondent to stop the misuse within one month and also make the payment of the misuse charges as per the statement given by the L&DO within four weeks.

2.

Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal set aside the findings of the Addl. Rent Controller on the ground that as the property was purchased by the petitioner from Shri Ram Lal and same has not been mutated in the record of L&DO, right to file petition u/s 14(1)(k) was not available in the hands of the petitioner. Mr. Gupta has contended that at page 4A of the paper-book there is a mutation certificate from the Ministry of Works & Houses, L&DO dated 26.8.1985 and this Court may take the subsequent events into consideration and set aside the order of the Rent Control Tribunal.

3.

To my mind it was not required when that property was to be mutated in the name of petitioner to maintain petition under ground of Section 14(1)(k) when the property was purchased by an instrument registered as a sale-deed dated 7.11.1979 on which stamp duty was paid by the petitioner, property with all its conditions by superior Lesser stood transferred in the name of the present petitioner. To hold contrary was not justified by the Rent Control Tribunal. However, I do not dwell much on this aspect of the matter as admittedly the mutation has been effect in the name of the petitioner in 1985.

4.

I set aside the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and restore the order of the Addl. Rent Controller.

5.

Appeal is allowed.