Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Petitioner Permitted to Continue Occupying Subject Property Until Auction: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, the Acting Chief Justice and Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora allowed a limited relief in a property auction case. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) orders and imposed specific conditions on the petitioner.

The case (W.P.(C) 42/2024) involved the petitioner, Rahul Anil Ahuja, seeking the quashing of an order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-I in O.A. No. 889/2017 and recovery proceedings pending before the Recovery Officer in RC No. 294/2019. Additionally, the petitioner sought permission to participate in an auction scheduled for 22.03.2024 and to continue occupying the subject property until then.

The judgment highlighted the petitioner's liability to pay rent and arrears of rent, specifically referring to an order dated 25.10.2022 passed by DRT-II in SA No. 29/2018. It stressed the importance of complying with DRT orders and respecting the legal obligations arising from them.

"The Petitioner admits his liability to pay rent at Rs. 2 lakhs per month in accordance with the order dated 25.10.2022 passed by DRT-II in S.A. No. 294/2019. The Petitioner has thus, become liable to pay rent with effect from 25.10.2022."

"The Petitioner will be entitled to continue to occupy the subject property beyond 22.03.2024 only if he is declared as the successful bidder in the auction proceedings. In this scenario, the Petitioner will continue to remain liable to pay rent to Respondent No. 3 until he deposits the entire bid amount."

The judgment allowed the petitioner to continue occupying the subject property until 22.03.2024, subject to strict compliance with the imposed conditions. It stressed the importance of adhering to DRT orders and fulfilling the obligations related to rent payments. This decision provides clarity in a property dispute and underscores the significance of legal compliance in such matters.

Date of Decision: January 03, 2024

RAHUL ANIL AHUJA VS GURCHARAN DHA WAN & ORS.

 

Similar News