High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 05 DEL CK 1832

Chain Sukh Pal vs Shiv Charan Goel

Delhi High Court · Decided on 20 May 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Jain, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
CM(M) 944/2025& CM APPL. 30955-30956/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 386 words
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 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/- with further condition that the applications would not be considered, unless and until the cost was paid.

8.

After hearing arguments from both the sides, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the cost of Rs.10,000/-, as imposed by the learned Rent Controller on 19.03.2025, is waived.

9.

However, it comes with a rider.

10.

On the next date i.e. 28.05.2025, the petitioner herein i.e. tenant, would render due assistance and cooperation to the learned Rent Controller and would advance arguments with respect to the abovesaid two applications. The Landlord would also be at liberty to file reply, if any, to the abovesaid applications.

11.

It is entirely upto the learned Rent Controller, if it chooses to hear arguments on application seeking leave to defend same day. Needless to say, the learned counsel for the tenant would come prepared for advancing arguments on application seeking leave to defend, as well.

12.

The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

13.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.