RC.REV.--691/2019. Case: SUBHASH GULATI Vs. HARISH KUMAR SETHI. High Court of Delhi (India)
|December 09, 2019
|High Court of Delhi (India)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.12.2019 + RC.REV. 691/2019 & CAV. 1210/2019
SUBHASH GULATI ………… Petitioner
HARISH KUMAR SETHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Ravi Sikri, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kunal
For the Respondent: Mr.Neeraj Yadav and Mr.Siddharth Arora,
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) CM APP No.52918/2019
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. RC.REV. 691/2019
Petitioner impugns judgment dated 17.09.2019 whereby eviction petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and eviction order passed.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that proceedings were listed on 02.09.2019 before the Rent Controller
when the arguments on an application filed by the petitioner Section 151 CPC were heard and thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 17.09.2019 for orders/clarification and the Rent Controller instead of disposing of the application under Section 151 CPC pronounced impugned judgment allowing the eviction petition on which arguments were heard.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that perusal of the order dated 02.09.2019 clearly shows that arguments were heard on the application under Section 151 CPC and no arguments on the eviction petition were heard.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/caveator submits that written arguments were filed by the respondent along with judgments on the eviction petition. He submits that as the evidence of the petitioner/tenant was closed, the application under Section CPC for re-opening of evidence was also without any merit.
Learned counsel submits that though the order does not record, that arguments were heard on the eviction petition, however composite arguments were heard by the Rent Controller.
Perusal of the order dated 02.09.2019 does not indicate arguments on the eviction petition were heard by the Rent Controller, the tenor of the order indicates that the arguments were heard only on the...
To continue readingRequest your trial