W.P.(CRL)/1460/2015 of OM PRAKASH Vs THE STATE & ORS

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2015-08-27

Parties

W.P.(CRL)/1460/2015 of OM PRAKASH (PETITIONER)
THE STATE & ORS (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

CRL.L.P./602/2022 of MS SACHDEVA ENTERPRISES Vs THE STATE AND ANR (2025)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 1460/2015 & Crl.M.A.10079/2015OM PRAKASH

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Surinder Kr., Adv. withMs.Jyotsna Gupta, Adv.

versus

THE STATE & ORS

..... Respondents

ThroughMs.Kamna Vohra, ASC.ASI Naresh Kumar PS Aman Vihar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%27.08.2015

The petitioner has come up before this Court seeking direction to thepolice to register FIR against his landlord for having got the buildingdemolished without giving any information to the petitioner who, accordingto his assertion, was on rent and was running meat shop in the aforesaidpremises.

The petitioner has stated that he has been tenant in the demolishedshop for around 16 years.Some dispute had erupted during the periodtenancy when the petitioner had to move before the competent authorityunder Delhi Rent Control Act and pursuant to the orders passed by thecompetent authority, the electric supply to the rented premises of thepetitioner was restored in the year 2009.

Status report has been filed by the State wherein it has been stated thatthe building belongs to one Pushpa Devi.The documents regarding her

ownership/title was verified by the police.The statement of Pushpa Deviwas also recorded. The police authority did not having any doubt about herbeing the actual owner of the property.

Aforesaid Pushpa Devi has made statement that the petitioner hadoccupied one of the shops in the building but on accepting payment of Rs.1lac, he had vacated the premises. Since the building was an old one, thesame was demolished.

The assertion of the house owner has been denied by the petitioner.

Thestatementthathevacatedthe premisesonacceptingaconsideration amount is also denied.

Be that as it may, since it is disputed question of fact, this Courtwould not like to go into such disputes.

The petitioner, if at all, is aggrieved, can pursue his remedies beforethe appropriate forum.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Dasti.

AUGUST 27, 2015ab

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J