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
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
Petitioner(s)
ANAND KUMAR
Adv. Anuj Kumar Mishra
Respondent(s)
RAJEEV KUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 424-District Judge
Disposed
Misc. Arguments
Misc. Arguments
Misc. Arguments
Misc. Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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
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
Explore other courts