KAMLESH KHANNA vs GEETA SARDANA

Judgment text excerpt

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11.03.2025 + RC.REV. 416/2016 KAMLESH KHANNA .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Ajay Chaudhary, Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Bharat Chaudhary and Mr. Anurag Singh Tomar, Advocates for LR-2 of the Petitioner. versus GEETA SARDANA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar and Mr. Sumit Kashyap, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition seeks to challenge an order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the learned SCJ/RC (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application for Leave to Defend/Contest filed by the Petitioner/tenant has been dismissed. The premises in issue are one shop in property bearing No. A-11, Gali No.1, Jagat Puri, Delhi-51 as shown in the red colour in the site plan annexed with the Eviction Petition [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant has made two submissions before this Court. He submits in the first instance that the need of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 416/2016 Page 1 of 15 By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.04.2025 18:46:55 Respondent/landlord as set out in the Eviction Petition is “cosmetic”. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant submits that soon after the filing of the present Petition, in fact 13 days later, the Respondent/landlord let out an adjacent shop bearing No. A-15/3, Jagat Puri, Delhi to a third party. It is thus contended that in view of the letting out of the shop, the bona fide need does not exist. 2.1 Secondly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant that there are several additional properties which were set out in the Application for Leave to Def