MR. GIRDHAR TOLANI vs MR. SATBHUSHAN ARORA

Judgment text excerpt

$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 31.01.2025 + RC.REV. 218/2024 & CM APPL. 46833/2024 MR. GIRDHAR TOLANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Varun Tyagi, Mr. Bharat Gupta, Mr. Yugal Chaudhary and Mr. Saurabh Khanijon, Advocates with Petitioner in person. versus MR. SATBHUSHAN ARORA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Alok Sinha and Mr. Aakash Saini, Advocates with Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/landlord impugning the order dated 28.05.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned SCJ-cum-RC (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the Leave to Defend/Contest Application filed by the Respondent/tenant has been allowed and the matter has been posted for trial. 2. This Court on the last date of hearing after examining the Impugned Order dated 28.05.2024, had prima facie found the same to be erroneous The relevant extract of the order dated 30.01.2025 is set out below: “… 6. This Court has examined the pleadings of the parties. The need as set out in the Eviction Petition is for the wife of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 218/2024 Page 1 of 6 By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:04.02.2025 16:54:32 Petitioner/landlord, who retired as a bank manager from the Bank of Baroda and has also trained in Palmistry, to set up her own office to pursue a career in palmistry from the subject premises. This need cannot be said to be a wishful need. 6.1. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Babu Lal v. Ashok Kumar; 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2536, has held that merely on account of old age, a person cannot be deprived of the right to livelihood and the consequent right to live with d