KISHORE KUMAR ARORA vs MAYANK RASTOGI

Judgment text excerpt

$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 07.01.2025 + RC.REV. 314/2024 KISHORE KUMAR ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kuber Giri, Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Mr. Rishabh Jain, Ms. Apurva Tyagi, Ms. Divyanshu Rathi, Advs. with Petitioner in-person versus MAYANK RASTOGI .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) CM APPL. 212/2025 [Exemption from filing certified copies] 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 64745/2024 [Stay] 3. In view of the fact that a fresh Application for stay has been filed by the Petitioner being CM APPL.211/2025, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, seeks and is granted permission to withdraw the present Application. 4. The present Application is dismissed as withdrawn. RC.REV. 314/2024 & CM APPL. 211/2025 [Stay] 5. This Court had on 06.11.2024 examined the matter and recorded the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:15.01.2025 RC.REV. 314/2024 Page 1 of 10 15:41:50 following: “5. The challenge of the Petitioner/tenant is two fold. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant that the need of the Respondent/landlord is not bona fide since he already has another shop at Greater Kailash and one shop in a mall at Gurugram. It is contended that the shop at Greater Kailash is being used by the Respondent/landlord for commercial purposes and it has wrongly been stated as otherwise by the Respondent/landlord, hence, a triable issue has been raised. 6. With respect to the subject premises at Gurugram, learned Counsel for the Petitioner disputes the averment of the Respondent/landlord that the business was not thriving in Gu