BABLI vs RAM KUMAR & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~60 and 61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 17th March, 2025 + CM(M) 501/2025 BABLI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Yadav, Advocate. versus RAM KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: + CM(M) 502/2025 BABLI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Yadav, Advocate. versus RAM KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) CM APPL. 15442/2025 in CM(M) 501/2025 CM APPL. 15447/2025 in CM(M) 502/2025 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications stand disposed of. CM(M) 501/2025 & CM APPL. 15441/2025 (Stay) CM(M) 502/2025 & CM APPL. 15446/2025 (Stay) 3. The petitioners are defending two separate eviction petitions filed by the same landlord. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 501/2025 and CM(M) 502/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:18.03.2025 15:58:52 4. The ground of eviction is bona fide requirement as provided under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 5. The petitioner i.e. tenant had moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to place on record certain original documents and to lead evidence. Such applications have been dismissed in both the abovesaid cases. The dismissal is for the same reasons and on the same grounds. 6. Such order is under challenge herein. 7. Since the facts are same, the only dissimilarity being the tenanted premises being different, both the petitions are taken up together. 8. It is obvious from the various orders placed on record that the tenant had earlier been directed to hand over some original documents so that these could be examined by a hand-writing expert. Despite there being a specific direction in this regard, neither such tenant nor her counsel appeared before the Court to explain