ANWAR KAMAL vs SUBHAN AHMED

Judgment text excerpt

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 12.02.2025 + RC.REV. 332/2024 & CM Appls.66830/2024, 8473/2025 ANWAR KAMAL .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Azka Ahmed, Adv. versus SUBHAN AHMED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The grievance of the Petitioner/tenant as articulated in the present Petition is that the order dated 23.07.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ACJ-cum-ARC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the premises i.e., ground floor of property bearing no. 2162, Rodgran, Lal Kuan, Delhi – 110006 [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”] has wrongly dismissed the Application for leave to defend in view of the fact that that no triable issues have been raised by the Petitioner/tenant. 2. This Court had heard both the parties in the matter on the last date of hearing and passed a detailed order. It is apposite to set out the relevant part of the order dated 18.11.2024: “4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant submits that there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties since the Respondent/landlord is not the owner of the subject premises. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant that the owner of the subject premises is one Smt. Pushpanjali Arora and this contention has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 332/2024 Page 1 of 14 By:RAHUL Signing Date:07.03.2025 18:35:37 been raised on the basis of a rent receipt counterfoil which was produced by the Petitioner/tenant before the learned Trial Court. 4.1 In addition, it is contended that the Respondent/landlord has an alternate accommodation available including three godowns at Arora Building,