MAHESH KUMAR vs PREM PRAKASH

Judgment text excerpt

$~95 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 1st, September, 2025 + CM(M) 1687/2025 & CM APPL. 54880-54882/2025 MAHESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneesh Grover, Advocate (Through VC) versus PREM PRAKASH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral 1. Petitioner is defending an eviction petition filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. 2. It was filed in the year 2013. 3. An application seeking leave to defend was moved on 18.12.2013, but, unfortunately, arguments on said application have yet not been heard. 4. After more than a decade, an application was moved seeking amendment in such leave to defend application and the grievance is with respect to dismissal of such application. 5. When the application seeking leave to defend was moved, tenant, therein mentioned he was earlier a tenant in the demised premises and that he had surrendered his tenancy rights in February 2006, and, thereafter, one Mr. Rajiv Soni, was taken as tenant in the demised premises w.e.f. 01.03.2006. 6. In the application seeking amendment, it has been claimed that previous counsel had taken a fictitious plea regarding surrendering of tenancy and such plea was taken without any instructions and without any knowledge and consent of the tenant. It is submitted by the tenant that his then counsel Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1687/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:03.09.2025 17:16:48 had assured that there was no need of his appearing before the Court and he had taken his signatures on certain papers. All in all, according to tenant, he had never taken any such plea that he had ever surrendered his tenancy rights and that one Mr. Rajiv Soni, thereafter, became a tenant in the demis