Property Rights – Ownership and Use of Building's Roof – Dispute over the right to use the roof of Akarshan Bhawan for installing water tanks and fire safety equipment – Appellants seeking a declaration and injunction against Respondents from making structural changes without statutory permissions – Appellants’ claim to easement rights for maintenance of water tanks and lift room on the roof. [Paras 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4]

Fire Safety and Sanitation Facilities – Essential Building Requirements – Unilateral removal of water tanks and fire safety equipment by Respondent No. 4 – Appellants’ FIR and subsequent inaction by authorities – Appeal for restoration of water supply to toilets and firefighting system. [Paras 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 6]

Building Regulations – Compliance and Alterations –Appellants' contention on building's compliance with fire department requirements – Necessity of overhead water tanks for fire safety and sanitation purposes – Dispute over Respondent No. 4's removal of these facilities. [Paras 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 6]

Easement Rights – Access to Common Facilities on Roof – Acknowledgment of Appellants' rights by Respondent No. 4 in a compromise deed – Appellants seeking enforcement of easement rights for maintenance of essential facilities on the roof. [Paras 7, 8, 14]

Safety and Sanitation – Reinstallation of Essential Facilities – Court’s opinion on the importance of fire safety equipment and sanitation facilities for building occupants – Direction for restoration of water tanks and fire safety equipment. [Paras 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22]

Construction Rights – Respondent No. 4's Future Building Plans – Appellants’ non-objection to Respondent No. 4's construction after obtaining municipal sanction – Court’s directive on accommodating essential facilities in new construction. [Paras 12, 13, 17, 18, 19]

Maintenance and Legal Compliance – Lift and Fire Safety Certificate – Directions for Appellant no.1 to remove deficiencies in fire safety and obtain necessary certificates – Order to provide a valid license for the lift in the building. [Paras 22, 23]

Decision – Restoration of Essential Facilities and Access Rights – Appeal allowed with directions for reinstallation of water tanks and fire safety equipment – Respondent No. 4 restrained from hindering access to the roof for maintenance purposes. [Paras 24, 25]

Rent Law - Eviction Order Challenged – Petitioner/tenant Charanjeet Singh challenged the eviction order passed for mezzanine floor in property No. 33A/1, Swadeshi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. [Para 1]

Landlord's Bona Fide Requirement – Respondent/landlord Vivek Jain filed an eviction petition citing need for expansion of family business and lack of suitable alternate accommodation, involving his brothers and their sons. [Para 2, 2.1]

Tenant's Contest Application – Petitioner contested the eviction citing vague requirements by respondent, employment of respondent's kin, availability of alternate space for storage, and hardship caused by eviction. [Para 2.2]

Legal Procedural Issues – Dispute over the procedural correctness of the petitioner's application for leave to contest, not fully on affidavit as required by law. [Para 2.3, 6, 7, 8]

Judicial Interpretation of 'Bona Fide Requirement' – Court examined the concept of 'bona fide requirement' for family business expansion, including gainfully employed sons, and emotional dependence within families. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]

Alternate Accommodation Argument – Court found no credible evidence supporting petitioner's claim of vacant room availability for storage, an essential contention for bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e). [Para 16]

Decision – High Court upheld the eviction order, finding no triable issue and affirming the bona fide requirement of the landlord for the subject premises. [Para 17]

Civil Law - Appeal Against Order Dismissing Amendment Application – Appellant's amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking to challenge a 1976 partition decree as fraudulent, dismissed by Single Judge [Paras 1-1.5].

Partition Suit Background – Suit filed by appellant for partition of property, claiming a 1/4th share. Respondents contended property already partitioned in 1976 [Paras 1.2-1.3].

Alleged Fraud in 1976 Decree – Appellant claimed 1976 partition decree collusive and fraudulent. Sought to declare it null and void [Para 1.4].

Single Judge's Observations – Amendment application was dismissed as it sought to change the nature of the original suit for partition [Para 1.5].

Appellant's Argument – Proposed amendment sought to challenge the 1976 decree's validity, claimed unawareness of decree and its fraudulent nature [Paras 2-2.4].

Respondents' Argument – 1976 partition decree was legitimate, and appellant had no right to challenge it. Amendment would change suit's nature [Paras 3-3.3].

Court's Analysis and Findings – Amendment would convert partition suit into a declaration suit with distinct cause of action and limitation, which is not permissible [Paras 5-11].

Appellant's Lack of Locus to Challenge 1976 Decree – Appellant had no right, title, or interest in the property in 1976. Cannot challenge ancestor’s actions posthumously [Paras 16-17, 19].

Decree Accepted by Ancestor – Appellant's common ancestor accepted and acted upon the 1976 decree, hence binding on appellant [Paras 14, 18-19].

Decree Cannot Be Challenged Posthumously – Right to challenge a decree is not transferable posthumously according to Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 [Para 19].

Dismissal of Appeal – Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it along with pending applications [Para 21].

Revision Petition – Delhi Rent Control Act – Dismissal of petition under Section 25B(8) – Tenant’s challenge to ownership and denial of jural relationship of landlord and tenant – Petitioner/tenant failed to provide documentary evidence of ownership, while respondents/landlords produced substantial evidence. [Paras 1, 8, 9, 11]

Bonafide Requirement – Section 14(1)(e) of the Act – Landlords' requirement for premises for expanding business – No sufficient evidence from tenant to refute landlords' claim of bonafide requirement – Tenant's vague denial of landlords’ need insufficient. [Paras 2.1, 6]

Alternate Accommodation – Tenant’s claim of landlords having alternate accommodation – Absence of specific details or supporting material from tenant – Landlords’ specific disclosure of premises used and requirement for expansion upheld. [Paras 6, 7]

Title to Property – Issue of landlord's title in eviction proceedings – Landlord not required to prove absolute title – Sufficient for landlord to establish better title than tenant – Petitioner/tenant failed to provide documentary evidence against landlords' substantiated claim of ownership. [Paras 7, 8, 9]

Legal Principles – Application of principles in exercising jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Act – High Court’s role in revision proceedings, balancing landlord's right to eviction and tenant’s right to contest. [Paras 5, 5.4, 5.5]

Decision – Dismissal of revision petition – Upholding the order of the Additional Rent Controller – Tenant’s application for leave to contest rightly rejected based on lack of substantial evidence and ownership claim. [Paras 12, 13]

Tender - Challenging Debarment Communication – The petitioner challenges the communication dated 17.06.2020 debarring them from participating in tenders due to alleged non-payment of wages and dues to employees [Para 1].

Facts of the Case – The petitioner was awarded a maintenance contract by the respondent. A show cause notice was issued for non-payment of wages and dues to employees, leading to the debarment of the petitioner for three years from participating in tenders by IPGCL or PPCL [Paras 2-3].

Contention of Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – The petitioner contends that the debarment was made without adequate notice, violating principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Food Corpn. of India [Para 4].

Examination of Contract Clauses – Contract clauses regarding blacklisting/debarment and termination were examined, indicating the respondent's discretion to blacklist/debar a contractor under certain conditions [Para 6-7].

Lack of Notice for Debarment – Court finds that there was no specific notice for debarment, only for termination of the contract, rendering the debarment notice invalid [Paras 8-10].

Apex Court's Observations – Referenced Apex Court judgments emphasize the necessity of a prior show-cause notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard before blacklisting or debarment [Para 12].

Conclusion and Judgment – The High Court set aside the debarment communication dated 17.06.2020 for lack of proper show cause notice. It allowed the respondent to issue a fresh notice for debarment on valid grounds [Paras 13-14].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce - Cruelty - Appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge denying divorce on the ground of cruelty - Husband alleged disrespectful behavior, physical assault, and financial exploitation by wife - Wife alleged husband's extramarital relationship with colleague causing marital discord - Evidence showed husband's intimate association with colleague, including living together and addressing her as mother, corroborating wife's claims - Complaints and representations made by colleague's father further supported wife's allegations - Husband's involvement with colleague during marriage found to be the cause of marital breakdown - Acquittal in criminal case related to marital dispute not absolving husband of cruelty - Principle of not benefiting from one's own wrongdoing applied - Appeal dismissed, divorce denied.

Contractual Dispute – Bank Guarantees – Challenging of Single Judge’s Judgment on Bank Guarantees – Appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge regarding the stay of invocation of advance and performance bank guarantees. Dispute involves supply contracts and bank guarantees provided by respondent no.1 to the appellant. Single Judge restrained invocation/encashment of bank guarantees, which was contested by the appellant. [Para 1, 2]

Invocation of Bank Guarantees – Criteria and Jurisprudence – Indian law recognizes only two grounds for restraining encashment of bank guarantees: fraud and special equities in the form of preventing irretrievable injustice. Unconscionability, as argued by respondent, not a recognized ground in Indian jurisprudence for staying bank guarantees. [Para 10, 11]

Bank Guarantee – Autonomous Nature and Non-interference by Courts – A bank guarantee is an independent contract and is to be honored irrespective of disputes in the underlying contract between the parties. Courts should not interfere with the autonomy of bank guarantees except in cases of fraud or irretrievable injustice. [Para 13, 14, 17]

Respondent’s Performance and Breach – Examination of Contractual Obligations – Respondent no.1's failure to fulfill contractual obligations highlighted. Against a contract value of approximately Rs. 310 crores, only goods worth Rs. 81 crores supplied, showing a clear breach by the respondent. [Para 13, 26]

Bank Guarantees – Interpretation and Obligations – Bank guarantees, both advance and performance, found to be unconditional, unqualified, and unequivocal. The assertion of loss by the appellant is conclusive upon the bank under these guarantees. The contention of respondent no.1 regarding absence of loss to the appellant rejected. [Para 19, 22, 23]

Judgment – Overruling of Single Judge’s Findings and Allowing Appeal – Findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment not sustainable. If invocation of bank guarantees by the appellant is in terms of the said bank guarantees, banks are bound to honor them. Appeal allowed, clarifying that judgment does not express an opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. [Para 26, 27]

Mandatory Injunction and Property Encroachment – Suit filed by appellant for removal of pipelines and taps erected by the respondent in appellant's property – Original suit decreed in favor of appellant, but reversed by the appellate court – Second appeal focuses on the legality of the mandatory injunction and property rights. [Paras 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10]

Burden of Proof and Right of Way Dispute – Argument over whether a declaration of title is necessary in cases of mandatory injunction – Appellant claims exclusive right over the disputed pathway, while the respondent asserts it belongs to the Gram Panchayat – Appellate court finds that the appellant failed to prove exclusive ownership. [Paras 3, 6, 10, 14-16]

Legal Principles in Granting Mandatory Injunction – Supreme Court precedents cited – Need for seeking declaration and recovery of possession in cases where property is under unlawful possession – Appellant's failure to seek such relief is a legal hurdle. [Paras 14-15]

Additional Evidence Consideration – Request for additional evidence in I.A.No.3 of 2019 denied – Documents related to sale and undertakings between the parties deemed not crucial for deciding the appeal – Parties advised to resolve through private settlement if possible. [Paras 18-19]

Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment of first appellate court confirmed – Parties granted liberty to seek remedies as per private undertakings if desired. [Para 20]

Lease Agreement and Eviction – Petitioner leased property from respondent with condition to vacate on one-month notice; petitioner failed to vacate after lease term, leading to eviction proceedings. [Para 1]

Defence of Petitioner – Claim of forcible eviction and inability to deposit rent due to external factors (Samaikhya Andhra Bandh). [Para 2]

Trial Proceedings – Rent Controller ordered petitioner to vacate, which was upheld by Appellate Authority; petitioner's failure to vacate led to the current revision petition. [Paras 3-4]

Petitioner's Livelihood and Accommodation – Argument that petitioner, a hairdresser, relies on property for livelihood and lacks alternative accommodation. [Para 5]

Court's Observation – Petitioner overstayed lease without extension; dismissal of O.S.No.68 of 2011 removed legal barriers to eviction. [Para 7]

Default in Rent Payment – Petitioner failed to prove non-wilful default in rent payment; burden of proof not discharged. [Para 8]

Decision – Civil Revision Petition dismissed, upholding orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority. No interference warranted in their decisions. [Para 9]

Order on Costs – No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. [Para 10]