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

203
0
Share:
fir bail transport pay Public T20 World Cup v Pay Video School company Human Rape Sexual Taxable Evidence Tax Statement property students Policy Bail Bail cheques Police Accident Service Claim Trademark Cognizance smuggling NI Eviction Agreement Minister Acid spa Old Delhi HC MBBS DivorceLand Child Evidence Bail Senior Marriage Maintenance Application Property Exam Evidence Divorce doctrine pocso award Medical public Income Tax constable National bailUniversity Property Recovery Evidence Adopted v Payment territorial corporation Bail liability police bank Constitutionality child nature claim domestic Limitation bsnl traffic property railway legal landlords Relationship Citizen property Tax custody phonetic predicate Acquisition forum public asset tax wire eligibility violence physical financial second trademark person Corpus Director TDS policy entertainment parody games recovery 14 tax judiciary claims court bar 34 Raps advertisement employees salary mother rape decisions students 138 divorce bail CBI fir evidence evidence eviction drc lower doctors legal investigation civil copyright

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

Download Judgment

Share: