Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order, Dismisses Petition Challenging Substitution of Legal Heirs in Eviction Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment dated September 27, 2023, the Delhi High Court, presided over by HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, upheld the order of the Trial Court in a case involving the substitution of legal heirs in an eviction petition. The petitioner, Shri Ram Maggo, had challenged the Trial Court's decision to allow the application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased landlady, Smt. Munto Begum.

One of the key objections raised by the petitioner was the lack of a formal application for condonation of delay in filing the substitution application. However, the High Court addressed this issue by referring to a Supreme Court judgment dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Moto W.P.(C) 3/2020, which allowed for the exclusion of a specific period for the purposes of limitation. In light of this, the objection regarding limitation was deemed untenable.

Another objection raised by the petitioner was the non-disclosure of details of all Class-I legal heirs of the deceased landlady in the application for substitution. The Trial Court had considered the original Will dated 17.09.2020, which was filed as evidence, and had allowed the application based on its contents. The High Court noted that the Trial Court's order did not suffer from any error or infirmity, and the rights of other legal heirs were specifically preserved.

The High Court further emphasized that the petitioner, who was a tenant in the property in question, lacked the locus to raise objections to the application filed by the sons of the deceased landlady under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It was suggested that the objections raised appeared to be a delay tactic in the adjudication of the application for leave to defend, which was pending before the Trial Court.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Trial Court's order, and deemed the petition to be without merit.

Representing the petitioner, Shri Ram Maggo, were advocates Mr. Rahul Kr. Singh and Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh. The judgment, while addressing the petitioner's objections, reiterated the importance of following legal procedures in matters related to substitution and eviction, ensuring that the rights of all parties involved are duly considered.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2023

SHRI RAM MAGGO  vs  SMT MUNTO BEGUM NOW DECEASED  & ORS

 

Latest Legal News