Disposed

Pushpa Devi v. Anil Kumar & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Jul 2016CONT.CAS(C)/563/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an order directing the vacating of a tenanted premises. The court found that possession had been handed over via a receipt dated 8th June, 2016. After the petitioner accepted payment of user charges and the respondent paid the stipulated sum of Rs.5,169/- in court, the contempt petition was disposed of as satisfied.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of as satisfied following payment of user charges and a sum of Rs.5,169/- by the respondents in court.

Pushpa Devi Vs Anil Kumar & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 563/2016

¶4

PUSHPA DEVI ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr.R.P.Pandey, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

ANIL KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Rajni Kant, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 11.07.2016

¶11

In view of Notification No.1078/G-4/Gen./DHC dated 6^th July, 2016, the cases fixed for 8^th July, 2016 have been taken today.

¶12

It is pertinent to mention that the present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 13^th November, 2014 passed in RC.REV.No.414/2012 whereby the Court directed the respondents to vacate the suit/tenanted premises on or before 31^st March, 2016.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite an undertaking given by the respondents, the tenanted premises was vacated only on 8^th June, 2016.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents had filed an application for extension of time for surrendering the shop and after the said application was dismissed, the possession of the premises was handed back to the petitioner on 19^th April, 2016. He states that the respondents are willing to pay the user charges as well as electricity and water charges till the said date.

¶15

In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a receipt dated 8^th June, 2016 duly executed by the petitioner and the respondents as well as the two witnesses. The said receipt reads as under:-

¶16

“ We, (1) Ram Niwas son of Shri Kichhu Mal, (2) Anil Kumarson of Shri Kichhu Mal, (3) Raj Kumar son of Shri Kichhu Mal, (4) Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Kichhu Mal, (5) Shiv Kumar son of Shri Kichuu Mal, residents of A-6 Chet Ram Gali, Maujpur, Delhi-110053, have today vacated the shop No.201/2-B, Main Road, Maujpur, Delhi and handed over its vacant physical possession of the said shop to its owner of Smt.Pushpa Devi wife of Shri Sri Ram Mishra, resident of 201/2B, Main Road, Maujpur, Delhi, in compliance of our undertaking given before the Hon’ble High Court in Revision filed by us. Now we have placed Smt. Pushpa Devi in physical possession of the said shop and hence forth we are left with no right of any kind whatsoever.”

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the signatures of the respondents on the said receipt. 7. Since the said receipt clearly states that the premises have been handed back today i.e. 8^th June, 2016, this Court directs the respondents to pay the user charges as well as the water and electricity charges till 8^th June, 2016.

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the event a sum of Rs.5,169/- is paid, the petitioner shall not press the present contempt petition. The respondent has today in Court paid the aforesaid amount to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view thereof, the present contempt petition is disposed of as satisfied.

¶19

MANMOHAN, J

¶20

JULY 11, 2016 KA

Pushpa Devi v. Anil Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Devi v. Anil Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Bhagat & Ors. Vs Dr Puneet Kumar Goel & Anr.

Chanderbhan Garg & Anr. Vs Ks Mehra Commissioner MCD

Manish Jain Vs Kamlesh Chand Gupta & Anr.

Manmohan Singh Vs Anil Sharma and Anr.

R P Malhan & Company Vs Sanjeev Srivastava and Another

R P Malhan & Company Vs Sanjeev Srivastava and Another

Jitender Kumar Vs Vijender Kumar & Anr.

R P Malhan & Company Vs Sanjeev Srivastava & Ors.

Suman Bhagat & Ors. Vs Dr Puneet Kumar Goel & Anr.

Chanderbhan Garg & Anr. Vs Ks Mehra Commissioner MCD

Bses Rajdhani Power Limited Vs Harish Chand Nagar & Anr.

Para Medical Technical Staff Welfare Association of MCD Vs P K Gupta & Anr.

Ashok Baugh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pramila Chauhan Vs Satya Prakash Gupta