Full Text
Translation output
•*>
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 1026/2010
SAJAL BANERJEE Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Vohra, Adv.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 1026/2010
SAJAL BANERJEE Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Vohra, Adv.
VERSUS
SEEMA KUMAR Respondent
Through; None
Through; None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L.BHAYANA
27.01.2011 This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated
24.7.2010.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is tenant in respect of the suit premises and the respondent/ landlord has filed suit for recovery of possession, damages and future mesne profits/ damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property.
The relationship between landlord and tenant is admitted. Rate of rent is also admitted. The plaintiff/ respondent moved an application under
Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC for
27.01.2011 This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated
24.7.2010.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is tenant in respect of the suit premises and the respondent/ landlord has filed suit for recovery of possession, damages and future mesne profits/ damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property.
The relationship between landlord and tenant is admitted. Rate of rent is also admitted. The plaintiff/ respondent moved an application under
Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC for
ORDER
on admission for recovery of possession of Mezzanine floor (First Floor) of property
2011:DHC:19922 No. C-105, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (herein after called 'suit property').
Learned trial Court vide order dated 1.7.2010 has allowed the application and decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the basis of admission in the written statement filed by him. This order dated
1.7.2010 was challenged in the appeal before learned ADJ, Delhi and leaned trial Court has refused to stay the impugned judgment of learned Civil Judge. The petitioner has challenged both these orders before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for Specific Performance of the Agreement dated 21.8.2006 so he is entitled to stay in the said premises till the decision of the suit for specific performance.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Since the relationship between landlord and tenant is admitted and the rate of rent is also admitted, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by both the Court^below.
Dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court for compliance.
5.L.BHAYANAJ JANUARY 27, 2011 kb 2011:DHC:19922
2011:DHC:19922 No. C-105, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (herein after called 'suit property').
Learned trial Court vide order dated 1.7.2010 has allowed the application and decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the basis of admission in the written statement filed by him. This order dated
1.7.2010 was challenged in the appeal before learned ADJ, Delhi and leaned trial Court has refused to stay the impugned judgment of learned Civil Judge. The petitioner has challenged both these orders before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for Specific Performance of the Agreement dated 21.8.2006 so he is entitled to stay in the said premises till the decision of the suit for specific performance.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Since the relationship between landlord and tenant is admitted and the rate of rent is also admitted, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by both the Court^below.
Dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court for compliance.
5.L.BHAYANAJ JANUARY 27, 2011 kb 2011:DHC:19922