The Chartered 281/2004 case brings into focus the intricate legal battle between the parties involved. With the Delhi High Court set to deliver a judgement, the status of the defendant in the suit property is under intense scrutiny. Stay updated on this case that has captured the attention of legal experts and observers alike.
Facts
- The Chartered 281/2004 case is pending before the court in RFA 409/2010.
- The case is under consideration in the ongoing legal proceedings.
- The judgement for the case is yet to be delivered.
Arguments
- Defendant claims possession of the property dating back to 1977.
- Defendant argues that they can only be directed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 350 per month due to a landlord-tenant relationship.
- Defendant asserts that the property is of high value in the city center.
- Defendant states that as unauthorized occupants, they are liable to pay user and occupation charges.
- Father of the plaintiff admitted defendant as their tenant in a previous lawsuit.
- Defendant’s nephew used to collect rent from the property.
- Plaintiff relies on a report from a certified valuer, disputed by the defendant.
- Defendant is willing to deposit rent at Rs. 350 per month.
- Defendant accuses plaintiff of making false claims contradictory to previous legal proceedings.
- Defendant denies reliance on a judgment in a previous case as it is under challenge.
- Defendant considers the valuer’s report self-serving and challenges its credibility.
- Defendant argues that judicial admission by plaintiff’s father is binding and cites legal precedent to support this claim.
- The plaintiff has filed an application under 15A for eviction of an unauthorised occupant/lessee or for the recovery of rent and future mean profit.
- As per the provision, the defendant is required to deposit the amount directed by the court for arrears up to the current month and continue to deposit rent claimed in the suit until the decision of the case unless the defense is struck off.
- The plaintiff has presented an evaluation report justifying the monthly charge of Rs. 54,574 as use and occupational charges.
- The evaluation report has been criticized for exceeding its scope by commenting on the landlord-tenant relationship, despite the matter being sub judice before the court.
Analysis
- The learned Additional District Judge in CS 281/2004 has declared the defendant as the illegal occupant of the suit property.
- The status of the defendant in the suit property is under consideration in RFA 409/2010 before the current court.
- The judgment in the present case is pending until the issue of the defendant’s status in the suit property is resolved in RFA 409/2010.
Decision
- First appeal is pending before the court
- Applications disposed of with a direction to await decision in RFA No.409/2010
- Documents claiming tenancy by defendant pending scrutiny before first Appellate Court
- Plaintiff allowed to take legal steps in RFA No.409/2010
Case Title: SHRI HARDEEP SINGH SAFRI Vs. SARDAR GURDYAL SINGH (2024:DHC:3777)
Case Number: I.A.-15840/2021
