Property Ownership Dispute – Will of Mahant Narsingh Dass – Bequeathing property to Chela Har Narain and Chela Budh Ram – Chela Budh Ram's subsequent agreement relinquishing rights, challenged in court. [Paras 1-8, 66-68, 70-77]

Validity of Compromise/Relinquishment Deed – Compromise Deed executed by Chela Budh Ram favoring Chela Har Narain – Deed on plain paper, unregistered, and unproved – Inadmissible as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. [Paras 9, 66-68, 70-77]

Jurisdiction and Scope Under Article 227 – Challenging Judgments in Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) – Petition under Article 227 challenging judgments in RCT and Additional Rent Controller (ARC) regarding eviction upheld under section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by High Court under Article 227 is circumscribed to issues of law and relevant facts for appreciating legal issues. [Paras 64, 82]

Documentary Evidence – Admissibility and Registration Requirements – Compromise Deed/Relinquishment Deed central to property ownership dispute not registered and not proved in accordance with law, thus inherently inadmissible as evidence. Reliance on such unregistered and unproved documents in judgments by ARC and RCT held to be misplaced. Necessity of registration under Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 emphasized. [Paras 66-77, 80-81]

Effect of Inadmissible Evidence on Judicial Decisions – Decisions based on inadmissible evidence (Compromise Deed/Relinquishment Deed) are unsustainable. Conclusions drawn on such evidence by lower courts in eviction proceedings must be disregarded. Case remitted to RCT for fresh decision excluding inadmissible evidence. [Paras 80-83]

Remand for Fresh Adjudication – Case remitted to RCT for fresh adjudication based on findings of inadmissible evidence. RCT may direct fresh evidence if necessary. [Para 83]

Disposition – Petition disposed of with directions to RCT for fresh adjudication without order as to costs. [Para 84]

Rent Law - Eviction Order Challenged - Petitioner/tenant Mohd Irfan challenged the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller regarding shops No. 4 & 5 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The order was based on the landlord's (respondents) need for the premises for a boutique business. Petitioner argued the cessation of bona fide need due to respondent no. 2’s marriage to a Pakistani national [Para 1, 4, 4.1, 4.2].

Bona Fide Requirement - The Court upheld the landlord's requirement as bona fide. Emphasized that the crucial date for considering bona fide requirement is the date of the institution of the eviction petition. Marriage of the landlady (respondent no. 2) post-petition and potential migration does not extinguish her requirement or her rights as an Indian citizen [Para 4, 4.1, 4.2].

Ownership and Jural Relationship Established - The Court noted that the ownership of the premises and the jural relationship of tenancy were established through undisputed rent receipts. The petitioner/tenant’s contention under the Enemy Property Act was dismissed [Para 3.4, 5.1].

Alternate Accommodation - The Court agreed with the Rent Controller that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of alternate accommodation. The respondents/landlords proved the lack of suitable alternate accommodation for running a boutique [Para 5.2].

Conclusion - The High Court found no infirmity in the impugned order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner/tenant [Para 6].

Dishonour Cheque - Quashing of Complaint Case No.19930/2016 under Section 138 NI Act - Petitioner, Neeta Gupta, seeks quashing of complaint filed by Suman Anand, alleging dishonored cheque of Rs.20,00,000/- - Petitioner claims no involvement as the cheque was signed solely by her late husband and she did not receive the statutory demand notice - Respondent alleges refusal by petitioner to accept notice - Matter of receipt of notice deemed suitable for trial [Paras 3-5].

Legal Framework under Section 138 NI Act - Criteria include cheque drawn for discharge of any debt or other liability, dishonored by the bank, and subsequent failure to pay post statutory demand notice - Not applicable if cheque not signed by accused in joint accounts - Supreme Court rulings in Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Alka Khandu Avhad v. Amar Syamprasad Mishra cited for not prosecuting joint account holder who hasn’t signed cheque [Paras 6-10].

Decision - Petition allowed, criminal complaint against petitioner quashed due to absence of her signature on the cheque - Application of Section 138 NI Act deemed misuse of legal process in this context [Para 11].

Cancellation of Candidature - OBC-NCL Certificate Deadline - Petitioner's Challenge: The petitioner's candidature for a postgraduate medical course was cancelled by AIIMS due to the late submission of the OBC-NCL certificate, despite meeting all other eligibility criteria. The petitioner challenged this cancellation as arbitrary and lacking rational nexus with the objective of reservation [Paras 1-2, 15-17, 90].

Important Dates and Prospectus Guidelines - AIIMS Admission Process: The AIIMS prospectus specified a timeframe for the submission of valid OBC-NCL certificates (06.11.2022 to 05.11.2023). The petitioner, initially submitting an OBC-NCL certificate dated 02.10.2022, later uploaded a fresh certificate dated 23.11.2023 upon request [Paras 6-8, 11, 15, 58].

Judicial Scrutiny of Eligibility Criteria - Fundamental Rights Consideration: The court scrutinized the eligibility criteria set by AIIMS, especially the stipulated timeframe for OBC-NCL certificates. It emphasized that the OBC-NCL certificate is a mere proof of an existing fact, and its submission deadline should not nullify a candidate’s fundamental right to fair consideration under the reservation policy [Paras 40-42, 56-57, 90].

Arbitrariness in Timeframe for OBC-NCL Certificate: The court found AIIMS's timeframe for the OBC-NCL certificate arbitrary, lacking a rational nexus with the reservation objective, and creating unnecessary confusion and hurdles for deserving candidates [Paras 76-78, 90].

Distinction between Technical/Academic Qualifications and OBC-NCL Certificate: The court distinguished the nature of an OBC-NCL certificate from regular qualifications, holding that while the former confirms an existing status, the latter refers to the acquisition of a new skill or knowledge [Paras 81-82, 90].

Direction to AIIMS - Acceptance of Petitioner’s OBC-NCL Certificate: The court directed AIIMS to accept the petitioner's OBC-NCL certificate dated 23.11.2023 and confirmed his admission granted earlier under an interim order [Paras 90-91].

Criminal Law – Rape - Conviction and Sentencing - Sonu Surender (Appellant) convicted under Sections 376 (2) (i) and 376 (2) (n), 506(II) IPC, and Section 6 POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl - Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fined ₹2,000 - Appellant's defense of false implication due to financial dispute rejected by the court [Paras 1-2, 27-34].

Evidence and Witness Credibility - Trial Court found victim's testimony consistent and credible despite minor improvements - Corroborated by mother and brother (PW-5 and PW-6) - Medical evidence confirmed assault - Discrepancies in father's testimony (PW-9) deemed non-detrimental to prosecution's case [Paras 5-7, 23-25].

Defense of False Implication - Appellant claimed false implication due to monetary dispute with victim's mother - Court found no evidence supporting this defense - Appellant's inconsistencies in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. not satisfactory [Paras 4, 26].

Legal Principles on Child Witnesses - Court relied on precedents for assessing credibility of child witnesses - Minor discrepancies not grounds for discrediting testimony - Importance of evaluating evidence in totality considering witness's age and background [Paras 18-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Conviction and sentence upheld - Pending applications disposed of [Paras 34-36].

Electoral Roll Revision – Challenge to Deletion from Electoral Rolls – Petitioners challenge deletion of names from electoral rolls in Parchuru Assembly Constituency – Allegations of arbitrary actions violating principles of natural justice – Respondents contend due process followed, legal remedies available. [Paras 1-13]

Principles of Natural Justice – Claim of violation by petitioners – Court finds procedural compliance by respondents, emphasizing available statutory appeal mechanisms as more effective remedy for petitioners. [Paras 14-18]

Manual on Electoral Rolls, 2023 – Compliance and Legal Force – Arguments on non-adherence to the Manual by respondents – Supreme Court precedent cited, holding instructions in Manual not equivalent to law, non-compliance does not confer justiciable rights on petitioners. [Paras 21-22]

Direction for Statutory Appeal – Court opines that statutory appeal under Representation of the People Act, 1950, is a more efficacious remedy – No substantial grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. [Para 20]

Decision – Writ petitions disposed, directing petitioners to statutory appeal – Interim orders in specific petitions vacated – Separate consideration for W.P. No. 32986 of 2023. [Paras 24-26]

Observation on Electoral Process Integrity – Court underscores the importance of adherence to electoral laws for maintaining sanctity and public confidence in elections. [Para 27]

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].