9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Second Appeal Order No. 275 of 1980 on December 2, 1981. The appellant-landlord of the suit premises is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. It filed application against the respondent-tenant for his eviction from the suit premises under Clause (d) of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short "the Act") on the ground that the premises are required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March, 1973. Within a week thereafter the respondent filed a review petition which was dismissed. He then filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the said order of eviction but that was dismissed as withdrawn on July 22, 1974. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal against the said order of eviction before the Rent Control Tribunal but it was also dismissed on September 5, 1977. Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the respondent across the Bar is indeed an admission of the party and, therefore, the Addl. Rent Controller recorded his satisfaction on the basis of the admission; the order of the Addl. Rent Controller cannot there by be treated as being without jurisdiction. We are afraid we cannot accede to the contention of the learned counsel. Whether the appellant is an institution within the meaning of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case, in our view, the aforementioned statement of the counsel of the respondent can not be accepted as an admission so as to bind the respondent. Excluding that statement from consideration there was thus no material before the Addl. Rent Controller to record his satisfaction within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 22 of the Act. It follows that the order of eviction was without jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
