Jeet Kaur (DECEASED THROUGH LRs JOGESH AHLUWALIA AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) vs Rajesh Kumar Walia(Not Applicable) Advocate - Janesh Gupta, ,NEMO — CR/39/2025

Case under Urban Rent Cotrol Act, 1987 Section 24(5). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th May 2026.

CNR: HPHC010494672024

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

CR/40460/2024

Filing Date

30-09-2024

Registration No

CR/39/2025

Registration Date

17-05-2025

Judge

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA

Coram

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

07th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

Urban Rent Cotrol Act, 1987 Section 24(5)

Petitioner(s)

Jeet Kaur (DECEASED THROUGH LRs JOGESH AHLUWALIA AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

Adv. Sanjeev Sood,Het Ram,Het Ram, ,Janesh Gupta,Het Ram

Respondent(s)

Rajesh Kumar Walia(Not Applicable) Advocate - Janesh Gupta, ,NEMO

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA

20-06-2025

ADMISSION AFTER NOTICE

27-02-2026

ADMISSION AFTER NOTICE

04-12-2025

ADMISSION AFTER NOTICE

17-11-2025

ADMISSION AFTER NOTICE

11-09-2025

ADMISSION AFTER NOTICE

Orders

07-05-2026
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA

Case Summary: CR 39/2025 - High Court of Himachal Pradesh The High Court dismissed the landlady's petition challenging the Appellate Authority's June 2024 judgment. The Rent Controller had ordered eviction for non-payment of rent (Rs. 22,68,890), but the Appellate Court modified this after the landlady's counsel conceded that excess deposited amounts should be adjusted against future rent with 6% interest. Justice Romesh Verma found no error in the Appellate Court's order, as it merely gave effect to the landlady's own concession regarding calculation of arrears. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CR 39/2025 - High Court of Himachal Pradesh The High Court dismissed the landlady's petition challenging the Appellate Authority's June 2024 judgment. The Rent Controller had ordered eviction for non-payment of rent (Rs. 22,68,890), but the Appellate Court modified this after the landlady's counsel conceded that excess deposited amounts should be adjusted against future rent with 6% interest. Justice Romesh Verma found no error in the Appellate Court's order, as it merely gave effect to the landlady's own concession regarding calculation of arrears. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case