$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 637/2019 NARESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. D.K. Rustagi, Ms. Astuti Verma and Ms. Anjali Pandey, Advs. versus SHIV SHANKAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. N.D. Pancholi, Mr. Amit Srivastav, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 16.12.2025

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner/ landlord submits that in another Eviction Petition bearing No.E-589/14/10 filed by him with respect to the adjacent premises of the subject premises herein, an application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant therein, wherein the very same grounds were urged, was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller (learned RC). Not only that, the revision petition bearing RC. REV. 377/2017 filed by the tenant thereagainst before this Court was also dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2017.

2. As such, learned counsel submits that the learned RC has granted leave to defend to the tenant in the present case vide impugned order dated 04.06.2019, merely because there was a gap of two and a half years in the filing of the Eviction Petition wherein the impugned order has been passed and the earlier one. This, according to him c