CHAIN SUKH PAL vs SHIV CHARAN GOEL

Judgment text excerpt

$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 20th May, 2025 + CM(M) 944/2025& CM APPL. 30955-30956/2025 CHAIN SUKH PAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person (through V.C.) versus SHIV CHARAN GOEL .....Respondent Through: Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate (through V.C.) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a petition which seeks eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. 2. The arguments on leave to defend application are yet to be heard. 3. It seems that the petitioner/tenant had moved two applications before the learned Rent Controller on 19.03.2025. Since copies of these applications were not supplied in advance to learned counsel for the landlord, the learned Rent Controller has burdened the tenant with cost of Rs.10,000/-. 4. It is also directed in the impugned order that if the cost of Rs.10,000/- is not paid, the Court would not hear arguments on those two applications moved by the tenant. One such application is under Section 151 CPC and the other has been filed under Section 10 CPC. 5. Sh. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has joined the proceedings through video conferencing on advance notice. 6. Undoubtedly, if the tenant was of the view that there is some Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 944/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:21.05.2025 16:49:49 subsequent event or that he has a case whereby eviction proceedings are liable to be stayed, he should have moved the applications well in advance and should have also ensured that advance copies thereof are supplied to the opposite counsel. 7. However, merely because of the aforesaid, the learned Controller should not have burdened the tenant with the cost of Rs.10,000/-