MADAN LAL SHARMA vs AMIT BANSAL

Judgment text excerpt

$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 + RC.REV. 387/2024 & CM APPL. 74957/2024 MADAN LAL SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kuldeep Jauhari, Mr. Anubhav Tyagi and Mr. Sahil Ahuja, Advocates with Petitioner in person. versus AMIT BANSAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankur Mahindro, Mr. Shubham Aggarwal and Mr. Soumil Gonsalves, Advocates with Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application of Leave to Defend/Contest filed by the Petitioner/tenant has been dismissed. The premises in issue are two rooms on the ground floor of property No.1309, Ward No.V, Vaidwara, Maliwara, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed to the Eviction Petition [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. 2. This Court had an occasion to examine the Impugned Order on two prior dates, i.e., 20.12.2024 as well as on 11.03.2025. It is apposite to extract Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 387/2024 Page 1 of 14 By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.04.2025 20:54:35 the relevant portion of the order dated 20.12.2024, which reads as under: “5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant has raised one contention. It is submitted that the need of the Respondent/landlord is not bonafide. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant that the remaining premises on the ground floor is under the occupation of another tenant (a saree shop). It is further submitted that it is this business that has been projected by the Resp