KUMARI GAYATRI TRIPATHI vs TRUST MANDIR SHRI RAMCHANDERJI (REGD.)

Judgment text excerpt

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 10.03.2025 + RC.REV. 257/2024 KUMARI GAYATRI TRIPATHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate. versus TRUST MANDIR SHRI RAMCHANDERJI (REGD.) .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. This Court had examined the matter and passed a detailed order on 04.03.2025. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that the possession of the subject premises has been restored to the Respondent/landlord. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, thus, submits that since the possession of the subject premises has been restored, nothing further survives in the present Petition and the Petition has become infructuous. 3. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in Ashok Gupta v. Deepak Rao1, which has relied upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in NC Daga v. Inder Mohan Singh Rana2, Vinod Kumar Verma v. Manmohan Verma3 and Neelam Sharma v. Ekant 1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7148 2 (2003) 1 SCC 453 3 Civil Appeal Nos. 5220-5221 of 2008 dated 19.08.2008 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:13.03.2025 RC.REV. 257/2024 Page 1 of 4 16:25:23 Rekhan4. This Court is supported in its view by judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court including Om Prakash Ashok Kumar & Sons v. Ajay Khurana5 and Bhawani Shankar v Nand Lal and Ors.6. 4. In the Ashok Gupta case, this Court has held that the provisions of the DRC Act provide for a remedy of restoration of possession to a Petitioners/tenants in one situation, i.e., under Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. In cases allowed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, the recovery of possessi