Delhi High Court
Vinod Vijay Khullar vs Edmc & Anr. on 24 March, 2022
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24th March, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 733/2021
VINOD VIJAY KHULLAR ..... Petitioner
versus
EDMC & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: Mr. Pawan Kumar and Mr. Sushil Kumar,
Advocates (through VC)
For the Respondent: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw and Mr. Subhoday Banerjee,
Advocates for EDMC (through VC)
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
1. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to vacate Plot
No. 47-48, DS Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and to pay arrears
of rent with interest and to pay damages and mesne profits for use and
occupation.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent is a tenant in the
subject land and is not vacating the same despite the fact that same is
lying vacant and not being to put any use.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:24.03.2022
Signing Date:25.03.2022 12:17:01 21:01
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
3. It is disputed by the respondents that subject land is not being
used. It is stated that they are tenants in the property and the property
is being utilized for a school.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the
status of the respondent is that of a tenant. It is not admitted that
petitioner is the owner/landlord of the subject property as per their
record, there are disputes with regard to the title of the property.
5. It is further contended that since the admitted position is that
respondents are tenants in the property and further that the subject
area is not an open piece of land but there is a structure built and the
rate of rent is less than Rs. 3,500/-, respondents are protected tenants
under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the remedy of the
petitioner is either to approach a Civil Court or the Rent Controller to
seek eviction and not by way of a writ petition as disputed questions
of facts are involved.
6. It is not in dispute that respondents are tenants in the subject
property and there is allegedly a dispute of title and further also as to
whether respondents are protected tenants or not.
7. In any event, since disputed question of facts are involved, a
writ petition would not be maintainable.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:24.03.2022
Signing Date:25.03.2022 12:17:01 21:01
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
8. The petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
9. This is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to avail
of appropriate remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with
law. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 24, 2022
'rs'
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:24.03.2022
Signing Date:25.03.2022 12:17:01 21:01
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
