AMARCHAND vs RAKESH KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 12.02.2025 + RC.REV. 191/2017, CM APPL. 15344/2017, CM APPL. 15345/2017, CM APPL. 8948/2018 AMARCHAND .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Mr. Puneet Yadav, Ms. Priya Mittal, Advs. versus RAKESH KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shekhar N., Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/tenant impugning an order dated 23.12.2017 passed by Ld. Rent Controller, Dwarka District Court, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’]. By the Impugned Order, the Eviction Petition of the Respondent/landlord was allowed after a complete trial was conducted in the matter. The premises in issue is one built- up shop bearing No.835/1 ground floor with underneath and without roof right, admeasuring 10.0332 sq. mtrs. Of Municipal Corporation of Delhi forming part of property no.835, Haibat Pura, Som Bazar, Najafgarh, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘subject premises’]. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant has raised one primary contention before this Court. Learned Counsel submits that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:01.03.2025 RC.REV. 191/2017 Page 1 of 13 22:24:22 Respondent/landlord has availability of alternate suitable accommodation with him. More specifically, it is contended that two shops bearing no. 9-10 and 11 in property No.834-835, Haibat Pura, Som Bazar, Najafgarh, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Shop No. 9-10 and 11”] are available with the Respondent/landlord. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent/landlord has contended that Shop No. 9-10 and 11 are not available with him , however, neith