RAMBETI vs PANDIT RAM KISHAN SHARMA

Judgment text excerpt

$~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22nd July, 2025 + CM(M) 835/2025 & CM APPL. 27132-27133/2025 RAMBETI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pratap Sahani and Mr. Manish Kumar Badal, Advocates. versus PANDIT RAM KISHAN SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner herein is defending an eviction petition which has been filed on the ground of bona fide requirement. 2. Leave to defend was granted to the tenant (petitioner herein) and case was put to trial. 3. When the case was at the stage of tenant’s evidence, she sought time to move an application for summoning additional witnesses. Her endeavour was to dispute and disprove the ownership of the landlord over the tenanted premises. 4. However, her such request has been declined vide order dated 11.02.2025. 5. She, thereafter, challenged abovesaid order by filing an appeal, which was also dismissed by learned District Judge vide order dated 09.04.2025. 6. Such order dated 09.04.2025 is under challenge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 835/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:24.07.2025 11:40:17 7. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, learned counsel for respondent (landlord) has appeared and submits that, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, he would have no objection if the petitioner is permitted to summon proposed additional witnesses as mentioned in order dated 11.02.2025. 8. Needless to say, in a petition which seeks eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, any such tenant needs to be given a due opportunity to disprove the factum of ownership of any such landlord over the tenanted premises. 9. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that there is no opposition to the petiti