MUKESH ARORA vs ESTATE OFFICER SH. R. P. SATI AND ORS. — 1/2024
Case under Public Premises Act 1971 Section 9. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th March 2026.
PPA - PUBLIC PREMISES ACT
CNR: DLND010001912024
Filing Number
135/2024
Filing Date
05-Jan-2024
Registration No
1/2024
Registration Date
06-Jan-2024
Court
District and Sessions Judge,New Delhi, PHC
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MUKESH ARORA
Adv. RAJESH KAUSHIK
Respondent(s)
-
1.ESTATE OFFICER SH. R. P. SATI AND ORS.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
17-Mar-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
The court dismissed the appellants' challenge to an eviction order for Shop No. 11, Basrurkar Market, finding that their license expired on 31.03.2012 and they had no vested right to renewal—which remains the sole discretion of NDMC. The court held that the appellants' occupation became unauthorized after allowing respondent No. 3 to occupy the premises, violating license deed Clause 9, and the Estate Officer properly directed eviction under the Public Premises Act, 1971. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
16-Mar-2026
Order
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
06-Mar-2026
Order
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
24-Jan-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
24-Jan-2026
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
20-Dec-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
20-Dec-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
18-Oct-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
18-Oct-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
06-Sep-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
06-Sep-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
18-Jul-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
18-Jul-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
02-May-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
02-May-2025
Arguments
-
07-Mar-2025
Arguments
-
24-Jan-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
24-Jan-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Jan-2025
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
10-Jan-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
17-Dec-2024
Copy Of OrderView PDF
-
17-Dec-2024
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
29-Nov-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
29-Nov-2024
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
29-Oct-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
29-Oct-2024
Misc. cases
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
07-Oct-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
07-Oct-2024
Misc. cases
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
20-Sep-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
20-Sep-2024
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Jul-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
25-Jul-2024
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
18-May-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
18-May-2024
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
16-Mar-2024
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
08-Feb-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
08-Feb-2024
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Jan-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
25-Jan-2024
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
19-Jan-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
19-Jan-2024
Misc./ Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
06-Jan-2024
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
06-Jan-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Jan-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 1/2024
The court dismissed the appellants' challenge to an eviction order for Shop No. 11, Basrurkar Market, finding that their license expired on 31.03.2012 and they had no vested right to renewal—which remains the sole discretion of NDMC. The court held that the appellants' occupation became unauthorized after allowing respondent No. 3 to occupy the premises, violating license deed Clause 9, and the Estate Officer properly directed eviction under the Public Premises Act, 1971. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts