Dismissed

Ramesh Chander Kumar & Anr. v. Mishri Lal Maurya

Delhi HC5 Nov 2019RC.REV./379/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought leave to withdraw revision petition against eviction order under Delhi Rent Control Act. Court allowed withdrawal subject to undertaking to vacate premises, pay arrears, and clear dues by a specified date, staying execution of impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw petition allowed; execution of impugned order stayed till 30.11.2020 subject to undertaking.

Ramesh Chander Kumar & Anr. Vs Mishri Lal Maurya — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~2

¶2

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

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 05.11.2019

¶4

RC.REV. 379/2019 & CM APPL. 28150/2019

¶5

RAMESH CHANDER KUMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

MISHRI LAL MAURYA ..... Respondent

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate with petitioner in person.

¶10

For the Respondent: Mr. H.S. Dhawan, Advocate with respondent in person.

¶11

CORAM:HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 28151/2019 (Exemption)

¶14

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

RC.REV. 379/2019

¶16

Petitioner impugns order dated 13.12.2018, whereby the Leave to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order passed.

¶17

RC.REV.379/2019

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

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 a shop in property bearing No. 2986/39-40, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, 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 30.11.2020. Petitioner further undertakes that they shall pay a sum of ₹ 12,500/per month as use and occupation charges to the respondent w.e.f. 01.07.2019 till the time he hands over the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent on or before 30.11.2020.

¶22

Petitioner further undertakes that he shall clear arrears of use and occupation charges within four weeks from today. Petitioner further undertakes that he shall clear all water, electricity and other dues/charges in respect of the tenanted premises before he vacates the premises on or before 30.11.2020. He further undertakes that he shall not sublet, assign or part with the possession of tenanted premises or any part thereof. He further under takes that he shall not cause any

¶23

RC.REV.379/2019

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

damage to the tenanted premises and hand over the possession of the same in the condition as it exists today subject to normal wear and tear.

¶26

The undertaking is accepted.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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 13.12.2018 shall remain stayed till 30.11.2020.

¶30

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶31

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶32

NOVEMBER 05, 2019

¶33

‘ rs’

¶34

RC.REV.379/2019

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Ramesh Chander Kumar & Anr. v. Mishri Lal Maurya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chander Kumar & Anr. v. Mishri Lal Maurya

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

Lgf Occupants Association Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs Sheela & Anr.

Rajdulari (Deceased) Thr Lrs Vs Raj Kumar Sharma

Vandana Gupta & Anr. Vs Ved Prakash Goel

Manghu Lal & Son through Partner R Sardana Vs Banarsi Lal & Ors.

Dr. a. Sakthivel Vs National Securities Depository Limited & Ors.