OM PRAKASH SINCE DECEASED & ORS. vs POONAM JAIN

Judgment text excerpt

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 16.01.2025 + RC.REV. 342/2024 & CM APPL. 68267/2024 OM PRAKASH SINCE DECEASED & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Vandna Aneja, Ms. Smriti & Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocates. versus POONAM JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Farman Ali, Mr. Piyush Gupta & Ms. Usha Jamnal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners/tenants impugning the order dated 11.07.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-02, Central, Tis Hazari, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the Leave to Defend/Contest Application filed by the Petitioners/tenants has been dismissed with respect to the premises i.e., Shop No.5 (Self-Marked), situated at Ground Floor, Property bearing No. 2628/1, 2674 to 2677, Gali Munde Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. 2. After a brief examination of the matter, this Court had passed a direction on 22.11.2024 that, prima facie, the Impugned Order has dealt with the contentions raised by the Petitioners/tenants, including in paragraph 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 342/2024 Page 1 of 18 By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:31.01.2025 08:28:11 of the Impugned Order. On 22.11.2024, after briefly hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenants, had recorded as follows: “7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenants submits that so far as concerns the landlord-tenant relationship and the ownership of the subject Premises, the same is not disputed. 8. The bonafide need as set out in the Eviction Petition is that the Respondent/landlord and his wife require to open a separate bu