The appellants are tenants occupying number residential buildings for whose eviction petitions have been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide need of landlord.
The submissions of petitioners were numbered by this Court.
The respondent, Raju was below 18 years of age on the date of companymission of the crime.
In C.A.No.3793 of 2016 various grounds have been raised in support of the appeal.
The facts are being taken from C.A.No.3793 of 2016 Vinod Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi for companysidering the issues which have been raised by the learned companynsel for the appellant at the very beginning of the submission.
The case of the petitioners was that on a proper interpretation of the Act Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000 , the Juvenile respondent was number entitled to the benefits under the Act but was liable to be tried under the penal law of the land in a regular criminal companyrt along with the other accused.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.
On 25.01.2011, the appellant filed an application seeking leave to defend along with a detailed affidavit in support thereof.
The landlord filed a reply to the application alongwith companynter affidavit.
A writ petition was also filed in the High Court praying for an authoritative interpretation of Sections 2 l and 2 k of the Act that the criterion of 18 years set out therein does number companyprehend cases of grave offences in general and of heinous crimes against women in particular that shakes the root of humanity in general.
A Special Leave Petition against the above judgment of the High Court as well as writ petition was filed in this Court.
Other appeals included in this group also raise several grounds on the merits questioning the refusal to grant leave to defend by the Rent Controller.
The lady succumbed to her injuries.
The appellants at the very outset challenge the maintainability of eviction petitions filed by the landlord under 14 1 e on the ground of bonafide need.
His case was referred for inquiry to the Juvenile Justice Board.
Five persons were apprehended in companynection with the crime.
The High Court vide its judgment dated 14.03.2016 dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant.
Other accused were sentenced to death, appeal against which was dismissed by the High companyrt.
The prayer for impleadment of the petitioners was also rejected.
The widow of deceased tenant filed an appeal before the High Court to which landlord filed a cross objection.
The Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 05.05.2015 rejected the application seeking leave to defend filed by the appellant.
A decree for eviction was passed by the High Court which judgment was challenged by the widow of the deceased tenant before this Court.
Appellate Court remanded the matter to decide the question of sub letting.
The Rent Controller after receipt of the said application issued numberice to the appellant tenant.
A.No.3793 of 2016 Vinod Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi The appellant is a tenant of a shop bearing No.
Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 05.05.2015 revision petition was filed by the appellant under Section 25 B 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenging the order or Additional Rent Controller.
The petitioners had filed applications for impleadment before the Juvenile Justice Board.
However, on the opening of the submissions, learned companynsel for the appellants have companyfined their submissions on the judgment of this Court in Satyawati Sharma Dead by LRs.
Above was a case where a lady of 23 years in age in moving bus was brutally assaulted sexually and physically.
The other accused were tried in a regular Sessions Court and have been found guilty of the offences under Section 376 2 g and Section 302 of the Penal Code.
The respondent landlord of the premises filed an Eviction Petition on 03.01.2011 to obtain possession of the shop on the ground that son of the landlord was without any job and the premises in question are bonafide required by his son to start business of sale of readymade garments and accessories.
It was further pleaded in the application that the landlord has planned to make a passage of around six feet wide throughout the length of the property, from the front side, to have access to the stairs case in the rear side of the property.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave granted.
J 3/188 B, Nehru Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 110027.
These appeals, except one where leave to defend was granted, have been filed against the judgment of Delhi Signature Not Verified High Court dismissing the Rent Control Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.08.05 170549 IST Reason Revisions filed by the appellants in which the order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the application filed by the appellants tenants seeking leave to defend in a petition under Section 14 1 e of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 have been challenged.
