HIMANSHU MITTAL AND ANR vs TARA CHAND GUPTA SINCE DECEASED — 8/2026
Case under Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 Section 38. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 24th March 2026.
RCT ARCT - RENT CNTRL TRIBUNAL/ADDL R.C.T
CNR: DLCT010005672026
e-Filing Number
12-01-2026
Filing Number
361/2026
Filing Date
12-01-2026
Registration No
8/2026
Registration Date
22-01-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Central, THC
Judge
9-District Judge
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HIMANSHU MITTAL AND ANR
Adv. RAKESH SRIVASTAVA
JAI PRAKASH
Adv. RAKESH SRIVASTAVA
Respondent(s)
TARA CHAND GUPTA SINCE DECEASED
SHYAM LATA THR LRS
Hearing History
Judge: 9-District Judge
Disposed
Order
Order
Misc. cases/purpose
Misc. cases/purpose
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-03-2026 | Order |
| 14-03-2026 | Order |
| 02-03-2026 | Misc. cases/purpose |
| 25-02-2026 | Misc. cases/purpose |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Judge upheld an eviction order against tenants Himanshu Mittal and Jai Prakash for willful and deliberate defaults in rent payment despite an earlier protective order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The court found 16 months of admitted non-payment scattered across 2017-2024, rejected claims of financial hardship as unsubstantiated, and denied Section 14(2) protection since the tenants had previously been condoned for similar defaults. The court also upheld a corrective order fixing a typographical error in the property address under Section 152 CPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The District Judge upheld an eviction order against tenants Himanshu Mittal and Jai Prakash for willful and deliberate defaults in rent payment despite an earlier protective order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The court found 16 months of admitted non-payment scattered across 2017-2024, rejected claims of financial hardship as unsubstantiated, and denied Section 14(2) protection since the tenants had previously been condoned for similar defaults. The court also upheld a corrective order fixing a typographical error in the property address under Section 152 CPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts