Full Text
Translation output
A-34 to 36
%08.8.2011
Present: Mr. K.K. Mehrotra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Kumar and Mr. S. Narain, Advocates for the respondent No. 1
& 2.
Ms. Zeenat Masoodi, Advocate for the respondent NO. 3.
+Cont.Cas.(C)No.27/2011 & CM Nos. 3716/2011 & 885/2011, Cont. Cas.(C) No. 28/2011 & CM Nos. 3718/2011 & 889/2011, Cont. Cas.(C) No. 29/2011 & CM Nos. 3717/2011 & 891/2011, * The petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the respondent.
Admittedly, the possession of the suit property has since been handed over to the petitioner on 03.09.2010; there is also no dispute that the arrears of rent/damages at~ 44 per sq. ft. are being paid regularly to the petitioner. Grievance is qua sub clause (vi) in the order dated
12.04.2010; contention being that the respondent had been directed only to remove the tables, chairs, refrigerators and air-conditioner from the premises and not to remove the fixtures such as wooden panelling, wooden shelves, flooring etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the photographs which have been filed along with the petition. His· submission is that substantial damage hasd been caused to the premises and wooden panelling, wooden shelves, flooring have been removed. The photographs have been perused. There appears to be a cemented floor and there is damage to the titles; learned counsel for the respondent states that it is disputed that these photographs were taken at the time when the possession of the premises had been handed over to the petitioner; the damage may have accrued for any other reason; The date is not shown in the photographs. The
2011:DHC:8414 r
,. letter filed by the petitioner along with his petition dated 03.01.2011 is relevant and resolves the controversy between the parties as this specifically states that the vacant possession of the disputed premises has been handed over to the petitioner by the respondent. This letter further records that these premises have been received to the satisfaction and in terms of the undertakings given to the court. In view of this factual scenario, nothing else survives in this petition.
Petition is accordingly disposedof. L
AUGUST 08, 2011 rb
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:8414
%08.8.2011
Present: Mr. K.K. Mehrotra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Kumar and Mr. S. Narain, Advocates for the respondent No. 1
& 2.
Ms. Zeenat Masoodi, Advocate for the respondent NO. 3.
+Cont.Cas.(C)No.27/2011 & CM Nos. 3716/2011 & 885/2011, Cont. Cas.(C) No. 28/2011 & CM Nos. 3718/2011 & 889/2011, Cont. Cas.(C) No. 29/2011 & CM Nos. 3717/2011 & 891/2011, * The petitioner is aggrieved by the act of the respondent.
Admittedly, the possession of the suit property has since been handed over to the petitioner on 03.09.2010; there is also no dispute that the arrears of rent/damages at~ 44 per sq. ft. are being paid regularly to the petitioner. Grievance is qua sub clause (vi) in the order dated
12.04.2010; contention being that the respondent had been directed only to remove the tables, chairs, refrigerators and air-conditioner from the premises and not to remove the fixtures such as wooden panelling, wooden shelves, flooring etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the photographs which have been filed along with the petition. His· submission is that substantial damage hasd been caused to the premises and wooden panelling, wooden shelves, flooring have been removed. The photographs have been perused. There appears to be a cemented floor and there is damage to the titles; learned counsel for the respondent states that it is disputed that these photographs were taken at the time when the possession of the premises had been handed over to the petitioner; the damage may have accrued for any other reason; The date is not shown in the photographs. The
2011:DHC:8414 r
,. letter filed by the petitioner along with his petition dated 03.01.2011 is relevant and resolves the controversy between the parties as this specifically states that the vacant possession of the disputed premises has been handed over to the petitioner by the respondent. This letter further records that these premises have been received to the satisfaction and in terms of the undertakings given to the court. In view of this factual scenario, nothing else survives in this petition.
Petition is accordingly disposedof. L
AUGUST 08, 2011 rb
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:8414
JUDGMENT