Petitioner tenant challenged eviction order on grounds of landlord's personal necessity. Court dismissed appeal, granting four months for vacancy handover contingent on rent payment and filing of undertaking.
Eviction order upheld; petitioner granted four months to vacate, subject to rent payment and filing of undertaking before Rent Controller.
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.
���������������������������������������� ��������������
�������������������������� !���"�#$%� Date of decision: 5th July, 2013
Ramesh Kumar
� Petitioner
Versus
Dina Nath
� Respondent
����$&�����'�(��$�����)��������)���$��������
Present: Mr. Sanjay Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
���)���$�������+����"���(%
This is tenant’s petition challenging the orders/judgments of the authorities below, whereby his eviction from the demised premises (i.e. a shop measuring 10 feet x 5 feet) has been ordered on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the respondent1landlord.
The Courts below, on appreciation of the evidence on record, have recorded a concurrent finding that the respondent1landlord requires the demised premises for his ��������� personal necessity.
Even before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unsuccessful to challenge the aforesaid findings by pointing out any material irregularities.
Faced with the aforesaid situation, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the demises premises is a shop, wherein the petitioner is running his business and thus, petitioner is ready to hand
2
������������������������������������
over the vacant possession of the same to the respondent1landlord if sufficient time is given to him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the petitioner shall pay usual monthly rent upto the date of handing over of the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent1landlord as charges for the use and occupation of the same. Learned counsel has further stated that the petitioner shall hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent1 landlord on or before the expiry of the time granted by this Court. He further stated that the petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Rent Controller in this regard.
Thus, keeping in view the submissions made, the revision petition is dismissed, on merits. However, the petitioner is granted four months’ time from today to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent1landlord, subject to payment of rent etc., as stated above and also furnishing of an undertaking of the petitioner before the Rent Controller within one month from today to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises on or before the expiry of the stipulated period of four months upto 05.11.2013.
It is made clear that the petitioner shall be bound by the submissions made on his behalf by his counsel before this Court.
In case of non1compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner shall also be liable for initiation of contempt
3
������������������������������������
proceedings for contempt of this Court in addition to the execution of
the eviction order.
�"���)���$�������%� ������
�,�-�.+� !���
���
Ramesh Kumar
Dina Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
