HARMUKHI JAIN vs MADHU BALA SAWAI

Judgment text excerpt

$~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28th April, 2025 + CM(M) 761/2025, CM APPL. 24858/2025, CM APPL. 24859/2025, CM APPL. 24860/2025 & CM APPL. 24861/2025 HARMUKHI JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sushant Sagar, Advocate versus MADHU BALA SAWAI .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending an eviction petition filed on the ground of bonafide requirement and is aggrieved by order dated 31.01.2025 whereby such eviction petition has been permitted to be restored. 2. When such eviction petition filed by respondent was taken up by learned Addl. Rent Controller on 28.07.2022, it noticed that landlord had not filed any reply to the application seeking leave to defend filed by his tenant. It also recorded that there was request for adjournment and time was sought for filing reply to such leave to defend application. However, learned Addl. Rent Controller, while declining to give any time, dismissed the petition in-default for non-prosecution. 3. Right here, this Court is compelled to observe that in case learned Addl. Rent Controller was of the view that landlord did not deserve any further opportunity of filing any reply to leave to defend application, it could have, easily, proceeded further with the matter and could have disposed of the Signature Not Verified CM(M) 761/2025 1 Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:30.04.2025 12:10:20 application filed by the tenant whereby such tenant was seeking leave to defend to the aforesaid eviction petition. However, dismissal of the eviction petition, as such, for non-prosecution was not warranted from any angle whatsoever. 4. Fact, however, remains that immediately after such dismissal of the eviction petition, application was