The Delhi High Court accepted the petitioner's undertaking to vacate the demised property and pay use and occupation charges, discharged the caveat, and dismissed the revision petition as withdrawn.
Petition dismissed; Caveat discharged; Execution of eviction order stayed till 31.01.2023.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
% Judgment delivered on: 05.02.2020 + RC.REV. 41/2020 BISHAN SWAROOP GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
RAJEEV SHARMA & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Yadav and Ms. Ruchira Arora and Mr. Dhananjay Me, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CAV.49/2020
In view of the appearance of the respondents, the caveat stands discharged.
RC.REV. 41/2020 & CM APPL. 2392-94/2020
RC.REV.41/2020
Page 1 of 3
RC.REV.41/2020
Page 2 of 3
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
FEBRUARY 05, 2020 ‘ rs’
RC.REV.41/2020
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an undertaking to vacate premises and pay mesne profits can be accepted in lieu of withdrawal of eviction petition.
Whether execution of the eviction order can be stayed pending vacation of the property.
Whether the petitioner must file an affidavit of the undertaking within a specified time.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bishan Swaroop Gupta
Rajeev Sharma
Sanjeev Sachdeva
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
