Dismissed

Pyare Lal v. Raj Pal Sharma

Delhi HC7 Nov 2019RC.REV./279/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition challenging an eviction order based on bonafide necessity, the High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The petitioner, appearing in person, undertook to vacate the premises and clear dues by May 31, 2020. Consequently, the court accepted the undertaking and stayed the execution of the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the execution of the eviction order dated 23.01.2016 until 31.05.2020 submitted to the petitioner's undertaking to vacate premises.

Pyare Lal Vs Raj Pal Sharma — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~16

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 07.11.2019

¶4

- RC.REV. 279/2016

¶5

PYARE LAL ..... Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

RAJ PAL SHARMA ..... Respondent

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate with petitioner in person For the Respondent: Mr. Davinder Verma with Mr. D.V. Singh, Advocates.

¶10

CORAM:-

¶11

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

RC.REV. 279/2016 & CM APPL.19120/2016 (stay)

¶15

Petitioner impugns order dated 23.01.2016, whereby leave to defend application of the petitioner was dismissed and an eviction order was passed.

¶16

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 one shop situated on the ground floor of property bearing No.172A (also known

¶17

RC.REV.279/2016

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

as 172/1), East Moti Bagh, Gali No.1, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, more particularly as shown in red colour in the site plan attached to the eviction petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner under instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court in person, seeks leave to withdraw the petition.

¶21

Petitioner, who is present in Court in person, undertakes that he shall vacate and handover the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent on or before 31.05.2020.

¶22

Petitioner further undertakes that he shall clear all water, electricity and other dues/charges in respect of the tenanted premises before they vacate the premises on or before 31.05.2020. Petitioner further undertakes that he shall not sublet, assign or part with the possession of the tenanted premises or any part thereof. He further undertakes that he shall not cause any damage to the tenanted premises and hand over the possession of the same to the respondent in the same condition as it exists today subject to normal wear and tear.

¶23

The undertaking is accepted.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent under instructions from the respondent submits that the undertaking is also acceptable to the respondent.

¶25

RC.REV.279/2016

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶28

Subject to petitioner filing an affidavit of undertaking in the above terms within a period of two weeks from today, execution of the impugned order dated 23.01.2016 shall remain stayed till 31.05.2020.

¶29

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶30

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J NOVEMBER 07, 2019 st

¶31

RC.REV.279/2016

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Pyare Lal v. Raj Pal Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pyare Lal v. Raj Pal Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Bansal Vs Naseer Ahmed & Anr.

Instiute for Socialist Education & Vastu Kala Academy & Ors. Vs Pandit Banktesh Jha

Rajiv Shram Vs Ndmc and Ors.

Sakshi & Anr. Vs Darshan Singh(Deceased) Thr Lrs

Mohd Ismail Vs Saeeduddin

Satyendra Bansal Vs Dipti Goel