ANAND KUMAR vs RAJEEV KUMAR — 123/2025

Case under Civil Procedure Code 1908 Section 96. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 25th March 2026.

RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ - REG. CIVIL APPEAL FOR DJ ADJ

CNR: DLSW010123132025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

25-11-2025

Filing Number

6101/2025

Filing Date

26-11-2025

Registration No

123/2025

Registration Date

08-12-2025

Court

District and Session Judge, South-West DWK

Judge

424-District Judge

Decision Date

25th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Civil Procedure Code 1908 Section 96

Petitioner(s)

ANAND KUMAR

Adv. Anuj Kumar Mishra

Respondent(s)

RAJEEV KUMAR

Hearing History

Judge: 424-District Judge

25-03-2026

Disposed

20-03-2026

Misc. Arguments

14-03-2026

Misc. Arguments

02-03-2026

Misc. Arguments

24-02-2026

Misc. Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

25-03-2026
COPY OF JUDGMENT

Case Summary: Anand Kumar vs. Rajeev Kumar (123/2025) The District Judge dismissed Anand Kumar's appeal against a preliminary eviction decree, upholding the trial court's judgment on admission that granted possession of a DDA flat to the landlord (Rajeev Kumar). The court found that Kumar, as tenant, had unequivocally admitted the landlord-tenant relationship, valid rent agreement at Rs. 7,500/month, and failure to vacate after termination notice—satisfying all essentials for judgment on admission under CPC Order XII Rule 6. The tenant's claim regarding Rs. 2 lakhs allegedly paid as security was kept open for trial and does not affect the possession relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Anand Kumar vs. Rajeev Kumar (123/2025) The District Judge dismissed Anand Kumar's appeal against a preliminary eviction decree, upholding the trial court's judgment on admission that granted possession of a DDA flat to the landlord (Rajeev Kumar). The court found that Kumar, as tenant, had unequivocally admitted the landlord-tenant relationship, valid rent agreement at Rs. 7,500/month, and failure to vacate after termination notice—satisfying all essentials for judgment on admission under CPC Order XII Rule 6. The tenant's claim regarding Rs. 2 lakhs allegedly paid as security was kept open for trial and does not affect the possession relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Judge, South-West DWK All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case