Full Text
Translation output
6.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 180/2010
RENUKA PRASAD Petitioner
Through ; Mr. P. Banerjee, Adv.
•versus
RAJA SINGH Respondent
Through : Mr. Suman Kapoor and Mr. Naveen iCumar, Advs.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 180/2010
RENUKA PRASAD Petitioner
Through ; Mr. P. Banerjee, Adv.
•versus
RAJA SINGH Respondent
Through : Mr. Suman Kapoor and Mr. Naveen iCumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
21.12.2010 Pursuant to order dated 26.08.2010 Smt. Sushila Devi who is attorney of petitioner Smt. Renuka Prasad has filed an undertal<ing In the form of affidavit. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that Smt. Sushiia Devi is special attorney of petitioner appointed under the Special Power of
Attorney dated 05.05.2010 and the copy of Special Power of
Attorney is on record and vide the aforesaid power of attorney she is competent to given undertal<ing on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that due to bonafide mistake in para 3 of the affidavit the date of vacating the premises has been mentioned as 28.02.2012 whereas the actual date agreed between the parties is
31.01.2012. It is further stated that In the last line of para 3 as
2010:DHC:13056 well as para 4 correct date has been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date in the third line of third para be also read as 31.01.2012. Nothing contrary is pointed out by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of above submissions made and as agreed between the parties, the time for vacating the premises in the affidavit given is to be read as 31.01.2012.
Learned counsel for the respondent has been supplied with copy of undertaking who submits that the same is in order and is satisfactory. The undertaking as contained in the affidavit Is accepted and the petitioner shall remain bound by the undertaking.
As regards arrears of rent are concerned, it Is stated that as on today, there are arrears of ? 27,300/-. Petitioner has handed over a cheque of ? 15,600/- today to the learned counsel for respondent favouring the respondent.
Counsel for petitioner undertakes to pay the balance by
24.12.2010 to the learned counsel for respondent.
It is also stated that petitioner will also continue to pay the monthly rent as per terms of undertaking.
The petition stands disposed of.
21.12.2010 Pursuant to order dated 26.08.2010 Smt. Sushila Devi who is attorney of petitioner Smt. Renuka Prasad has filed an undertal<ing In the form of affidavit. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that Smt. Sushiia Devi is special attorney of petitioner appointed under the Special Power of
Attorney dated 05.05.2010 and the copy of Special Power of
Attorney is on record and vide the aforesaid power of attorney she is competent to given undertal<ing on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that due to bonafide mistake in para 3 of the affidavit the date of vacating the premises has been mentioned as 28.02.2012 whereas the actual date agreed between the parties is
31.01.2012. It is further stated that In the last line of para 3 as
2010:DHC:13056 well as para 4 correct date has been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date in the third line of third para be also read as 31.01.2012. Nothing contrary is pointed out by the counsel for the respondent.
In view of above submissions made and as agreed between the parties, the time for vacating the premises in the affidavit given is to be read as 31.01.2012.
Learned counsel for the respondent has been supplied with copy of undertaking who submits that the same is in order and is satisfactory. The undertaking as contained in the affidavit Is accepted and the petitioner shall remain bound by the undertaking.
As regards arrears of rent are concerned, it Is stated that as on today, there are arrears of ? 27,300/-. Petitioner has handed over a cheque of ? 15,600/- today to the learned counsel for respondent favouring the respondent.
Counsel for petitioner undertakes to pay the balance by
24.12.2010 to the learned counsel for respondent.
It is also stated that petitioner will also continue to pay the monthly rent as per terms of undertaking.
The petition stands disposed of.
CM 13514/2010 & 13516/2010
In view of order on the main petition, no further orders are required on the present applications. The same stand disposed of accordingly. ^
VEENA BIRBAUJ
DECEMBER 21, 2010 W t
Kks/srb — ^ •
^ - ^
In view of order on the main petition, no further orders are required on the present applications. The same stand disposed of accordingly. ^
VEENA BIRBAUJ
DECEMBER 21, 2010 W t
Kks/srb — ^ •
^ - ^
JUDGMENT