Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kaur vs Rekha Patwa & Anr. on 1 December, 2023
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 01.12.2023
+ CM(M) 1453/2023
RAVINDER KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karanpreet Singh and Mr.
Jaspreet Singh, Advocates
versus
REKHA PATWA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):
1. The learned counsel for the Petitioner at the hearing dated 06.09.2023
had placed before this Court a tabulation enlisting the five (5) sale deeds for
which permission is being sought to be placed on record, which is as under:-
S.No Particulars Owner Page No. of this
petition
1. Sale deed of Property bearing no. Surinder Patwa 72-87
4063-4064, First and Second Floor (Original Petitioner
with roof rights, Roshanara Road, no.2)
Delhi-110007. (purchased on
January, 2019)
2. Sale deed of property bearing no. Surinder Patwa 90-103
4044-4045, Roshanara Road, (Original Petitioner
Delhi-110007. (purchased on no.2)
September, 2015)
3. Sale deed of property no. 4007 & Rekha Patwa 106-119
(Original Petitioner
4008, Roshanara Road, Delhi-
no.1)
110007. (purchased on Feb, 2014)
4. Sale deed of property no. 4002, Surinder Patwa 122-135
Roshanara Road, Delhi-10007. (Original Petitioner
(purchased on Feb, 2014) no.2)
5. Sale deed of property no. 4062, Surinder Patwa 138-151
Roshanara Road, Delhi-10007. (Original Petitioner
(purchased on Feb, 2014) no.2)
2. The learned counsel for the Respondents states on instructions that
each of the five (5) sale deeds enlisted in this table are owned either by
original petitioner No. 1 or original petitioner No. 2, in the eviction petition.
2.1. He, however, states that property bearing No. 4044-4045 enlisted at
serial No. 2 is a residential property. He states that similarly property No.
4063 enlisted at serial No. 1 is also a residential property.
2.2. He further states that the properties enlisted in the table are not
suitable for the requirements of the landlord and therefore, are not an
alternate accommodation available to them.
2.3. He states that subject to recording of this objection, the aforesaid
documents be taken on record.
3. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner i.e., the tenants states that
as per his instructions, property bearing No. 4063 at serial No.1 is a
commercial property.
3.1. He states that it is the contention of the Petitioner that these properties
enlisted in the table are a suitable alternate accommodation available to the
Respondents.
4. In view of the judgement of this Court in Ashok Kumar vs. Hotel
Zodiac Pvt. Ltd. passed in CM(M) 77/2020 decided on 28.09.2021 and the
averments made by the Petitioner at paragraph 2(xii), paragraph 4 and 6 of
his application seeking leave to defend; the aforesaid five (5) sale deeds
details whereof are given in the table handed over to this Court on
06.09.2023 and placed on record of this petition at pages 72 to 151 are
permitted to be taken on record before the Trial Court.
4.1 However, the Petitioner is bound down to his statement that no
amendment to the pleadings is required because of these documents being
taken on record as these are in furtherance of his existing averments at para
2 (xii), 4 and 6 of the application seeking leave to defend.
5. The counsel for the Petitioner undertakes that he will address
arguments before the Trial Court on 05.12.2023 and not seek any
adjournment.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the tabulation dated
06.09.2023 will be filed with the Registry during the course of the day.
7. The rival stand of the parties with respect to the aforesaid properties
will be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
9. Pending application(s) if any stands dismissed.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
DECEMBER 1, 2023/rhc/sk
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
