MS ANJU vs SH GURMUKH SINGH SACHDEV

Judgment text excerpt

$~95 & 96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27th, August, 2025 + CM(M) 1634/2025 & CM APPL. 53356-53357/2025 MS ANJU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra, Ms. Ritika Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, Ms. Prachi Dutta and Mr. Jatin Awasthi, Advocates. versus SH GURMUKH SINGH SACHDEV .....Respondent Through: None. + CM(M) 1635/2025 & CM APPL. 53360-53361/2025 ANJU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra, Ms. Ritika Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, Ms. Prachi Dutta and Mr. Jatin Awasthi, Advocates. versus GURMUKH SINGH SACHDEV .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending one eviction petition filed on the ground of bona fide requirement i.e. under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 2. Needless to say, the procedure applicable for such type of eviction Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1634/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:28.08.2025 17:19:14 petition is summary in nature and Section 25-B of DRC Act is a complete code, in itself, for deciding any such petition. 3. The petitioner i.e. tenant has already filed an application seeking leave to defend and when the learned Controller was at the stage of hearing argument on such leave to defend application, the tenant filed two different applications. 4. By virtue of one application, she was seeking appointment of Local Commissioner so that such local commissioner can “visit the other properties of which the landlord has claimed himself to be the owner” so that Commissioner can then prepare site plans of said properties which would enable the learned Controller to assess actual bona fide requirement of landlord. 5. By virtue of another application moved under Order XI Rule 12 and 14 read with Section