KISHORE KUMAR vs SURESH SETHI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 20th March, 2025 + CM(M) 3987/2024 & CM APPL. 70878-70880/2024 KISHORE KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Suvendra Mishra, Ms. Sonal Mishra and Mr. Utkarsh Mishra, Advs. versus SURESH SETHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Bhakti P Sethi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The situation in the present case is peculiar. 2. The petitioner herein is a tenant who is defending eviction petition filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. 3. During the pendency of the above said petition, the tenant had contended before the learned Rent Controller that since the petitioner had been claiming rent @ Rs. 50,000/- per month, the petition, being beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller, should have been dismissed. Learned Rent Controller, taking note of the fact that in the petition, the rent was mentioned as Rs. 100/- per month, which fact had not even been controverted by the tenant, observed that the petition was maintainable under Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 (in short “DRC Act”) 4. Such order is under challenge. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent/Landlord, however, apprises about one substantial and significant development in the matter. She submits that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 3987/2024 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:21.03.2025 17:59:45 since the proceedings were summary in nature, the learned Rent Controller considered the application seeking leave to defend filed by such tenant and vide order dated 05.03.2025 has refused to grant any leave. 6. The challenge in the present petition pertains solely to the maintainability of the case under the DRC Act. Since the leave to defend has already been denied and the tenant has right to file a