KAPIL SACHDEV vs PINAKI PRASAD

Judgment text excerpt

$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 12.03.2025 + RC.REV. 343/2019 KAPIL SACHDEV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anshul Mittal and Mr. Sarthak Tagra, Advs. versus PINAKI PRASAD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aranya Moulick and Ms. Namya Rishi, 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 impugning the order dated 10.12.2018 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ACJ/CCJ/ARC (South), District Court Saket, New Delhi with respect to the premises i.e., B20, Second Floor, Geetanjali, New Delhi-110017 as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed with the Eviction Petition [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. By the Impugned Order, the leave to defend Application filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed. 2. This Court by an order dated 02.08.2023 affixed user and occupation charges in the matter. It is the case of both the parties that user and occupation charges are being paid regularly by the Petitioner. This Court had briefly examined the matter on the last date of hearing as well and had Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 343/2019 Page 1 of 16 By:RAHUL Signing Date:01.04.2025 16:17:45 directed as follows: “3. So far as concerns the landlord-tenant relationship, the same has not been disputed in view of the fact the challenge is to inter se a compromise and Will executed in favour of the Respondent. The learned Trial Court has also found that the Petitioner has admitted to being a tenant and has also not disputed the predecessor of the Respondent to be the owner of the subject premises. 4. On the aspect of bona fide need, it is the case of the Respondent tha