MST. ZARINA BEGUM (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS) vs MST. NASEEMA BEGUM & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 + RC.REV. 80/2025, CM APPL. 13304/2025 & CM APPL. 13305/2025 MST. ZARINA BEGUM (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jai Wadhwa & Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, Advocates with Petitioner in person. versus MST. NASEEMA BEGUM & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) CM APPL. 13304/2025 [Exemption] 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. RC.REV. 80/2025 & CM APPL. 13305/2025 [for stay] 3. The present Petition seeks to challenge an order dated 29.07.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ARC- 02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the leave to defend Application filed by the Petitioner/tenant has been dismissed. The premises in issue is property bearing No.7503, Qasabpura, Delhi, Ward No.14, Delhi. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:26.03.2025 RC.REV. 80/2025 Page 1 of 13 08:17:52 4. The matter was briefly heard by the Court on the last date of hearing and on that date, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant sought time to take instructions. 5. An opportunity was granted to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/tenant on the last date of hearing to take instructions to seek additional time to vacate. 6. The Petitioner/tenant is present in Court today. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner does not wish for additional time to vacate. 7. The challenge by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant is on the ownership of the subject premises. It is submitted that the Respondents/landlords are not the owners of the subject premises, however, the