RAMESHWARI vs AJAY PAL SINGH

Judgment text excerpt

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 23.01.2025 + RC.REV. 273/2024 & CM APPL. 58763/2024 RAMESHWARI .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Janak Raj Rana and Mr. Vinod Patidar, Advs. versus AJAY PAL SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Ms. Rajshree Singh and Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advs. 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/tenant impugning the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned ACJ-cum-CCJ- cum-ARC South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application for leave to defend filed by the Petitioner/tenant has been dismissed and the Petitioner/tenant was directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e., shop on ground floor of property number 289, Punjabi Bazar, Gurudwara Road, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi 110003, measuring 25 feet X 24 feet (shown in red colour in the site plan annexed along with the Eviction Petition) [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made the following Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 273/2024 Page 1 of 15 By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:08.02.2025 18:34:22 contentions. In the first instance, he submits that the Respondent/landlord is in the habit of filing multiple litigations. He submits that even previously, four other matters have been filed seeking vacation of the Petitioner/tenant from the subject premises. 2.1 Secondly, it is contended that the need as set out by the Respondent/landlord is not bona fide. He submits that there is no requirement of the daughter-in-law of the Respondent/landlord to set up a boutique. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant submits that the