PRAVESH SACHDEVA vs SARITA SINGH

Judgment text excerpt

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11.03.2025 + RC.REV. 392/2024 & CM APPL. 75312/2024 PRAVESH SACHDEVA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nagesh Kapoor, Mr. Karandeep Singh, Mr. Fauzan Abbasi and Mr. Ansh Sachdeva, Advocates. versus SARITA SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal and Ms. Ramika Munjal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. This Court had examined the matter on the last date of hearing and passed the following directions: “4. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant impugning the order dated 09.09.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the Leave to Defend/Contest Application filed by the Petitioner/tenant has been dismissed with respect to the premises No.7055, Gali Tanki Wali, Ghas Mandi, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi- 110006 [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant submits that so far as concerns the aspect of landlord-tenant relationship and ownership, there is no contest. 6. On the aspect of bonafide need, the learned Trial Court has found that the bonafide need is for the son of the Respondent/landlord to set up a business of hardware since his consultancy/business was not doing well. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 392/2024 Page 1 of 11 By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.04.2025 18:55:23 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant submits that in the Eviction Petition, as well as, in the Leave to Defend/Contest Application filed by the Petitioner/tenant, there were various alternate accommodations set out, however, the learned Trial Court has not adequatel