SATISH KUMAR vs ATTAR SINGH AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 08th April, 2025 + CM(M) 661/2025& CM APPL. 20884-20886/2025 SATISH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhradwaj, Advocate. versus ATTAR SINGH AND ORS. .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Mr. Attar Singh and Mr. Chhattar Singh (since deceased) had filed an Eviction Petition on the ground of bona fide requirement. The petition was filed against their tenants namely, Kamlesh Saini and Kishan Saini. 2. Leave to defend was declined to them. 3. Resultantly, a decree was passed in favour of the petitioners and against said tenants under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, way back on 19.02.2016. 4. The decree has already attained finality. 5. However, when the Execution petition was filed by the landlord, one Mr. Satish Kumar (petitioner herein) filed Objection Petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC and in such Objection Petition, he claimed that he was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 661/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:34:01 rather a lawful tenant/lessee of shop property in question i.e. property bearing No. 235, Main Haiderpur Road, Delhi. He claimed that he was tenant with respect to Shop No. 2 and was inducted as tenant in the year 2002 by Mr. Attar Singh. So much so, according to him, he was paying regular rent to his such landlord. 6. According to him, the decree in question pertained to another shop i.e. shop No. 3 and since, he is occupant of Shop No.2 in his substantive capacity as a tenant, he cannot be evicted from his said shop in the garb of abovesaid Execution Petition. 7. In order to substantiate such contention, he placed on record several rent receipts from 20