Dismissed

Sunder Lal v. Hem Chand and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Mar 2022CR/46/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this tenancy dispute, the applicant-tenant sought withdrawal from the litigation after handing over possession to the respondents. The High Court held that since the dispute was settled and possession returned, the writ petition no longer survived and was dismissed as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not pressed and pending applications disposed of.

Sunder Lal Vs Hem Chand and Another — Landlord and Tenant | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 9^th DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

¶5

CIVIL REVISION NO. 46 OF 2018

¶6

Between:-

¶7

SUNDER LAL (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HIS SON NAMELY SH. BALBIR SINGH (SON) RESIDENT OF SHOP NO. 124/6, SAMKHETAR MOHALLA, MANDI TOWN SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶8

...APPLICANT/TENANT (BY SH. DEVENDER K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND

¶9

1. HEM CHAND (DECEASED) SON OF LATE SH. LOHARU RAM SON OF ALTE SH. DHAR.

¶10

2. YOG RAJ SON OF LATE SH. LOHARU RAM SON OF ALTE SH. DHAR BOTH RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 98/9, BHAGWAHAN MOHALLA, MANDI TOWN, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶11

...NON-APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS/LANDLORDS

¶12

3. RAVI DUTT SON OF LATE SH. SUNDER LAL

¶13

4. SHEELA DEVI D/O LATE SH. SUNDER LAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAH POST OFFICE GAGAL, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. 5. VIDYA DEVI ALIAS PINI DAUGHTER OF LATE SH. SUNDER LAL RESIDENT OF

¶14

¶15

NATIONAL STREET NEAR PNB BANK MOTI BAZZAR, MANDI TOWN, H.P. 6. NIRMALA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SUNDER LAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUHAG, POST OFFICE SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶16

...NON-APPLICANT/PROFORMA RESPONDENTS

¶17

(SH. VIVEK SHARMA, ADVOCATE).

¶18

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Both the parties are present in person.

¶21

It is fairly stated by the petitioner-tenant that after

¶22

the death of his father he has stepped into the shoes of his father as a tenant and he does not intend to pursue the instant lis , as he has already handed over the vacant and physical possession of the premises to the landlords-respondents.

¶23

The landlord Yog Raj (Respondent No. 2) is present in person and states that he has received the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises that was earlier in the occupation of the petitioner-tenant and, therefore, has no objection, in case, the petitioner wants to withdraw this petition.

¶24

Since the parties have settled the dispute and otherwise also the petitioner-tenant does not want to pursue the instant lis and rather has handed over the vacant and peaceful

¶25

¶26

possession of the premises to the respondents-landlords, the present petition does not survive.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶29

9^th March, 2022 (sanjeev)

Sunder Lal v. Hem Chand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunder Lal v. Hem Chand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

Led Ram Vs State of Hp

Ashok Kumar Vs Sandeep Kumar

Kc Aggarwal Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Vijay Kumar Vs Hpseb Ltd. and Anr.

M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd. Vs Manoj Kumar and Ors.