SUDESH KUMAR BANSAL Vs. AJAY SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the petition was originally filed within time but was returned with objections and thereafter it took some time to remove the objections, consequently, a delay of 76 days in re-filing the petition has occurred.

(2.) Learned counsel further submits that in any event this being a rent revision, is covered by Article 137 of the Limitation Act and the limitation period is three years from the impugned order and even if it is calculated from the date of re-filing the petition is within time.

(3.) In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CAV 1008/2019 In view of the appearance of the respondents, caveat stands discharged. RC.REV. 586/2019 & CM APPL.44465/2019 (stay) 1. Petitioner impugns order dated 04.05.2019 whereby leave to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order passed. 2. Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide necessity under Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 from Shop No. 8631, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, situated at ground floor of the suit property, more particularly as shown in yellow colour in the site plan attached to the eviction petition. 3. It is contended in the eviction petition that the respondent- landlord is not carrying any business and requires the subject premises bonafidely for use and occupation by himself as he is neither in servicer nor is in any business and wants to carry on business of novelties, gift items, etc. from the tenanted premises.