SACHIN NAGPAL vs GOPAL KRISHAN

Judgment text excerpt

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 12.02.2025 + RC.REV. 326/2024 & CM APPL. 66207/2024 SACHIN NAGPAL .....Petitioner Through: Vikas Khatri, Mr. Manas Khatri, Ms. Khushboo Pathak & Ms. Seema Khatri, Advocates. versus GOPAL KRISHAN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kunal Kher, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/tenant seeking to challenge the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned CCJ cum ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Leave to Defend/Contest Application filed by the Petitioner/tenant has been dismissed. The premises in issue is a private Shop No.11, situated at First Floor of Property bearing No. 413, Gali Rajan Kalan, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 [hereinafter referred to as the “subject premises”]. 2. This Court had examined the Impugned Order on the last date of hearing as well as today. 3. The Petitioner/tenant had, on the previous date, raised the same contention that he has raised today. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA RC.REV. 326/2024 Page 1 of 10 Signing Date:05.03.2025 12:24:56 Petitioner/tenant that the Respondent/landlord has 26 shops available in the same building as the subject premises is situated and that this was not disclosed by him in the Eviction Petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant, in addition, has sought to rely upon paragraphs 8 and 13 of the Impugned Order to submit that there were other shops available and that the Petitioner/tenant should have been given an opportunity to lead evidence with respect to the availability of alternate suitable acc