Partly allowed¶¶21

M/S Ram Saroop Ram Niwas v. Bimla Devi

Delhi HC15 Jul 2025RC.REV./196/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RC.REV. 196/2025; CM APPL. 19928/2026; Section 151 CPC; Delhi High Court; Amit Sharma, J.; order dated 30.03.2026; extension of time to vacate subject premises; compliance with order dated 15.07.2025; use and occupation charges Rs. 60,000/- per month from 01.07.2025; additional Rs. 25,000/- per month; enhanced payment Rs. 85,000/- per month; statutory charges including electricity and water; fresh affidavit of undertaking; next hearing 05.05.2026; petitioner ill health; food grains business.

What did the court decide?

Time to vacate the subject premises extended to 01.06.2026 (short of the 90 days sought), conditional on payment of Rs. 85,000/- per month alongwith statutory charges including electricity and water, and filing of a fresh affidavit of undertaking. ¶¶21

M/S Ram Saroop Ram Niwas Vs Bimla Devi — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be granted an extension of time (90 days sought) to comply with the order dated 15.07.2025 requiring vacation of the subject premises, and on what terms.

¶¶13

Court's answer

The Court extended time in modified form: the petitioner shall vacate the premises on or before 01.06.2026 (instead of the 90 days prayed for) and shall pay Rs. 85,000/- per month to the respondent alongwith statutory charges, including electricity and water.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner shall place on record a fresh affidavit of undertaking before the next date of hearing; the matter was listed on 05.05.2026.

¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M/s Ram Saroop Ram Niwas v. Bimla Devi, RC.REV. 196/2025 (Delhi High Court, Amit Sharma, J., order dated 30.03.2026). CM APPL. 19928/2026 under Section 151 CPC sought a 90-day extension to comply with the order dated 15.07.2025 recording the petitioner's undertaking to vacate the subject premises on or before 31.03.2026, on payment of use and occupation charges at Rs. 60,000/- per month from 01.07.2025 plus all statutory charges including water and electricity. The Court recorded that payments had been made up to 31.03.2026 (confirmed by respondent's counsel) and that the petitioner, a food grains trader, could not secure alternative premises owing to ill health. The application was partly allowed: the petitioner is to vacate on or before 01.06.2026 and pay Rs. 85,000/- per month alongwith statutory charges including electricity and water (his counsel having offered an additional Rs. 25,000/- per month over the existing Rs. 60,000/-), file a fresh affidavit of undertaking before the next hearing, with the matter listed on 05.05.2026.

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RC.REV. 196/2025

¶4

M/S RAM SAROOP RAM NIWAS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Chhabra and Mr. Kunal Jaggi, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

BIMLA DEVI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Usha Singh and Mr. Sunil Gupta, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R % 30.03.2026

¶10

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 19928/2026

¶11

The present application under Section 151 of the CPC seeks following

¶12

prayers:-

¶13

<a. That the petitioner may be granted an extension of 90 days in order to comply with the Order of 15.07.2025.

¶14

b. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court deem fit.=

¶15

As per order dated 15.07.2025 petitioner has placed on record undertaking stating that he shall vacate the subject premises on or before 31.03.2026, subject to payment of use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per month with effect from 01.07.2025, as well as of all statutory charges, including water and electricity charges. It is pointed out that the said payment has been done up to 31.03.2026. It is further submitted that petitioner is in the business of sale of food grains and after furnishing the undertaking he has been making sincere efforts to search an alternative place in the vicinity

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 01/04/2026 at 15:15:36

¶18

of the area, however, on account of his ill health, he could not find premises on lease.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent confirms the fact that the payment has been made, however, opposes the present application.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the latter shall vacate the premises within a period of 60 days and shall also pay an extra sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month in addition to Rs. 60,000/- per month for his stay beyond the period of time as mentioned in the undertaking.

¶21

In these circumstances, the petitioner shall vacate the premises on or before 01.06.2026 and shall pay a sum of Rs. 85,000/- per month to the respondent alongwith statutory charges, including electricity and water.

¶22

Petitioner shall place on record fresh affidavit of undertaking before the next date of hearing.

¶23

List on 05.05.2026.

¶24

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith .

¶25

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶26

MARCH 30, 2026 /sn/ah

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 01/04/2026 at 15:15:36

M/S Ram Saroop Ram Niwas v. Bimla Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ram Saroop Ram Niwas v. Bimla Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Dwevedi Vs State Bank of India

Davinder Pal Singh Vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee & Ors.

Kuljit Singh Vs Kishan Veer Singh

Vijay S Menon Vs Fateh Singh

Surbhi Satcom Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Impetus Technologies and Ors.

Sardha Ram Hari Ram Vs Bimla Devi