Dismissed

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Tara Devi and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jul 2013CR/4236/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order dismisses the writ petition on merits. It grants the petitioner one year to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession, conditioned on continuing to pay mesne profits to respondents and filing an undertaking with the Rent Controller.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted one year from today to vacate premises, pay mesne profits, and file an undertaking to hand over vacant possession by the stipulated date.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tara Devi and… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR No.4236 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.4236 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.07.2013

¶5

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ......Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

Tara Devi & ors. ......Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶9

¶10

Present: Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)

¶13

CM No.15132-CII of 2013

¶14

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

CR No.4236 of 2013 (O&M)

¶16

Eviction of the petitioner i.e. The New India Insurance Company Limited from the demised premises has been ordered by the Rent Controller vide order dated 7.9.2011 and the same has been upheld by the Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment and decree dated 1.6.2013.

¶17

At the outset, counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent of seeking some reasonable time for vacating the demised premises.

¶18

In view of the submission made, this writ petition is confined to the said relief only.

¶19

Notice of motion.

¶20

Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.29 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

¶22

CR No.4236 of 2013 (O&M)

¶23

At this stage, Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶24

Counsel for the respondents is not averse to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of reasonable time to vacate the demised premises. However, he has vehemently argued that for the period as may be granted by this Court, the petitioner shall continue to pay the use and occupation charges as determined by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 9.2.2012 and further the petitioner shall hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises on or before the stipulated date and shall also file an undertaking in this regard before the Rent Controller.

¶25

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has no objection to the aforesaid submission and has prayed that the petitioner-Company be given one year's time to vacate the demised premises and hand over the vacant possession to the landlord-respondents on the conditions as enumerated above.

¶26

Thus, this petition is dismissed on merits. However, the petitioner-Company is granted one year's time from today i.e. upto 17.7.2014 subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to pay the mesne profits/use and occupation charges as determined by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 9.2.2012 and that the petitioner shall hand over the vacant possession on or before the said date to the respondent-landlord and shall also file an undertaking before the Rent Controller within one month from today in this regard.

¶27

It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents be directed to accept the mesne profits from the petitionerCompany.

¶28

Counsel for the respondents has very fairly stated that the

¶29

Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.29 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶30

CR No.4236 of 2013 (O&M)

¶31

¶32

petitioner may pay the mesne profits to the landlord-respondents directly.

¶33

Needless to say that if any of the conditions is violated, the respondents shall be at liberty to execute the eviction order passed against the petitioner by the Courts below forthwith. It may further be noticed that on expiry of time, if the vacant possession is not handed over to the landlord-respondents, the petitioner shall also be liable for initiation of contempt proceedings against it in addition to the execution of the eviction order.

¶34

July 18, 2013 ps

¶35

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶36

Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.29 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Tara Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Tara Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hardees Kumar Vs Harinder Kumar

Jagdish Kumar Vs Rupinder Kumar & Ors.

Balbir Singh and Anr. Vs Sunny Jain

Harchand Singh Vs Sukhwinder Singh and Ors.

Inderpal Singh Vs Sudeep Kumar and Ors.

Amarjit Singh Vs Sikh Gurudwara Judicial Commission and Ors.