Dismissed

Mohd. Yusuf v. Mohd. Yunus

Delhi HC11 Sept 2024RC.REV./57/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging an eviction order dated 30.10.2023. While affirming the eviction, the court granted the petitioner time till 30.06.2025 to vacate, subject to conditions regarding subletting, alterations, rent payment, and filing an affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted time till 30.06.2025 to vacate the premises; eviction order affirmed; petition dismissed with conditions.

Mohd. Yusuf Vs Mohd. Yunus — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RC.REV. 57/2024 & CM APPL. 10540/2024

¶4

MOHD. YUSUF .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rajan Chaudhray, Mr. Ansh Yadav and Ms. Bandana Chaudhary, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

MOHD. YUNUS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tanishq Panwar and Mr. Aman Qayoom Wani, Advocates

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN O R D E R % 11.09.2024

¶10

The present revision petition is filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act ”) to impugn the judgment and order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the court of Sh. Pranav Joshi, CCJ-cum-ARC, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ trial court ”) in eviction case bearing RC ARC no. 77/20 titled as Mohd. Yunus V Mohd. Yusuf .

¶11

The respondent filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25(B) of the Act bearing RC ARC no. 77/20 titled as Mohd. Yunus V Mohd. Yusuf against the petitioner in respect of one shop/godown bearing private No. 4, measuring 9' 9" x 25', in property bearing No. 2107 (Old) and 1468 (New), Ward No. XIV, Gali Chulhe Walan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as “ the tenanted premises ”) as shown in red colour in the site plan.

¶12

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 04:41:52

¶13

The petitioner after service of summons as per the Third Schedule of the Act, filed an application for leave to defend. The trial court vide impugned order dated 30.10.2023, after conclusion of the trial, has passed the eviction order in respect of the tenanted premises in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed the present petition.

¶14

The perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2023 reflects that the trial court has considered all the relevant issues as raised by the parties and passed a reasoned order. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2023 and the same are accordingly affirmed.

¶15

Mr. Rajan Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, stated that the petitioner is ready to vacate the tenanted premises but the petitioner be given time till 30.06.2025 to vacate the tenanted premises.

¶16

Mr. Tanishq Panwar, Advocate for the respondent, on instructions from the respondent stated that the petitioner can be given time till 30.06.2025 to vacate the tenanted premises and the respondent shall be accepting the agreed rate of rent till the time the petitioner vacates the tenanted premises.

¶17

Accordingly, in view of the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties, and while affirming eviction order dated 30.10.2023, the petitioner is granted time till 30.06.2025 to vacate the tenanted premises with the condition that petitioner shall not sublet/assign or part with the possession of tenanted premises or any part thereof and shall not carry out any material addition or alteration in the tenanted premises. The petitioner is

¶18

¶19

also permitted to pay the agreed rent till the time the petitioner vacates the tenanted premises on or before on the last day of each English calendar month. The petitioner is also directed to clear the electricity and water charges before vacating the tenanted premises.

¶20

It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to vacate the tenanted premises till 30.06.2025, in that eventuality, the respondent shall be at liberty to initiate/continue appropriate legal proceedings including execution proceedings for vacation of the tenanted premises.

¶21

The petitioner is also directed to file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit to the said effect before this Court within a period of 02 weeks regarding the vacation of the tenanted premises on or before 30.06.2025 and other conditions as agreed upon.

¶22

The present petition along with pending application stands disposed of.

¶23

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J

¶24

SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 Sk/abk

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 04:41:52

Mohd. Yusuf v. Mohd. Yunus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Yusuf v. Mohd. Yunus

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

Kamal Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Smt. Anita Vs the State through Adm Office and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Khanna Vs Sumit Tanwar & Ors.

Msc Agency (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI and Ors.

Khalid Riaz & Ors. Vs Chaman Begum

Sadhana Gupta Vs Hansraj Gupta and Co. Pvt. Ltd.