PRABHATI LAL NOW DECEASED THROUGH THEIR LEGAL HEIRS vs NEETU NANDA

Judgment text excerpt

$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 20.02.2025 + RC.REV. 15/2025, CM APPL. 10512/2024 PRABHATI LAL NOW DECEASED THROUGH THEIR LEGAL HEIRS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Kumar & Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Advocates. versus NEETU NANDA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Upasana Pahuja, Ms. Mehak Chaudhary & Mr. Pranav Sahni, Advocates for R-1 with R-1 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Court. 2. This Court had examined the Impugned Order on 15.01.2025 and passed a detailed order. The relevant extract of the order dated 15.01.2025 is set out below: “7. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner impugning the order dated 06.07.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the premises i.e., property bearing no. 3772, Gali Ram Nath Patwa, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. By the Impugned Order, the leave to defend Application filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity. It is submitted that the Respondent is not the owner of the subject premises. In addition, it is submitted that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 15/2025 Page 1 of 14 By:RAHUL Signing Date:07.03.2025 18:54:52 need as projected by the Respondent is not bonafide. 9. The record reflects that the Petitioner admits that he is the tenant, he however states that the Respondent is not the owner of the subject premises. The learned Trial Court has dealt with this objection in the Impugned Order and has found that