Full Text
Translation output
(l- 10.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 9 lzOLO NALINI DUTTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.K.B.Rohtagi, Advocate with petitioner in person.
VCTSUS
DROPADI DEVI .... Respondent
Through Mr.K.Venkataraman, Advocate with respondent in peison. a
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 9 lzOLO NALINI DUTTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.K.B.Rohtagi, Advocate with petitioner in person.
VCTSUS
DROPADI DEVI .... Respondent
Through Mr.K.Venkataraman, Advocate with respondent in peison. a
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI I
16.04.2010 The present petition is directed against an order dated
9th October, 2009 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, dismissing the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant in reply to an eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlady under Section
14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, in respect of 'the first floor of the premises bearing No.19B/35-B-1, Ramesh Market, Garhi, East of
Kailash, New Delhi. While dismissing the leave to defend application
RC.REV. 9/2OLO Page No.1 of 4 t o/o \ 2010:DHC:11239
,tq, ,\.
@ \a filed by the petitioner/tenant, an eviction order was also passed in favour of the respondent/landlady. Howeve,r, counsel for the petitioner states that orders may be passeO today, not only in respect of the first floor, but also the terrace of the suit premises under her occupation.
Matter is still at the stage of admission. T[ough notice was not issued on the present petition, counsel for the respondent entered appearance in terms of the order dated l8th January, 2010. Both the parties have addressed arguments at length. However, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court as to why the impugned order is not in accordance with law. Detailed reasons therefor are, however, not being furnished os, in the course of arguments, the parties have arrived at a settlement and the counsel for the petitioner states, on instructions from 'his client, that the petitioner confines the present petition only to the relief grant of further time, till the end of October, 20It to vacate the tenanted premises. The petitioner withdraws the challenge laid to the impugned
I order and states that she shall remain bound by the same and shall not challenge it in the future. It is further stated that possession of the tenanted premises including the terrace shall be handed over to
RC.REV. I /ZOLO I t @ th tn the respondent upon the expiry of the extended time. The counsel for
! e respondent states that he has consulted his client, who is present
Court and the aforesaid request is acceptable to her, subject to the petitioner furnishing the usual undertaking to the Court to vacate the suit premises on or before 31.10.2011. ., In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, the present petition is disposed of with the consent of the parties on the following lines:-
(i) The petitioner shall remain in possession of the tenanted premises including the terrace portion, till 31't October, 2OII, and immediately thereafter, she shall hand over vacant, peaceful, physical possession thereof to the respondent.
(ii) The parties agree that the petitioner shall pay rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent, payable on or'before the 7th day of each calendar month, till the vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises is handed over by her to the respondent/landlady.
Both the parties confirm that there are no arreard of rent in respect of the tenanted premises.
(iii) The petitioner shall continue to clear the electricity and water bills of the tenanted premises by paying the same directly to the concerned authorities and shall furnish a 'No Dues Certificate' to the respondent at the time of handing over vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises.
(iv) The petitioner shall not create any third party interest in the suit premises during the duration of her stay.
RC.REV. I lz0t0 Page No.3 of 4 -\r' \J (v) In case, the respondent expires before 31tt October, 2O!1, the petitioner shall hand over vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises to her legal heirs, without any demur.
(vi) Both the parties agree that they shall withdraw their respective litigations filed against each other in respect of the tenanted premises pending before various courts, within a period of two weeks.
The petitioner shall file an undertaking to the Court within two weeks, specifically including therein the aforesaid $erms and conditions of settlement, with a copy to the other side. In case, the aforesaid undertaking is not filed by the petitioner the stipulated time, the
Registry shall place the matter in the Court forthwith.
Counsels for the parties have explained the aforesaid orders in vernacular to their respective parties, who are present in the Court.
The parties agree to-remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement and in token of their acceptance, they have affixed their signatures in the margin of the order sheet ato;g with that of their counsels.
The petition is disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI,J a APRrL 16, 2O1O sn RC.REV. 9lz0t0
N$,,^- &W'r_.0r", C NAL rNl >urrn J ,fuJ.ttY +n ?*Nt^/
N&-.j'sl^Jla* u\"fu+ ,t- $o{,+=h l7 . e1 ,2olo u'ev'
. /' '
16.04.2010 The present petition is directed against an order dated
9th October, 2009 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, dismissing the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant in reply to an eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlady under Section
14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, in respect of 'the first floor of the premises bearing No.19B/35-B-1, Ramesh Market, Garhi, East of
Kailash, New Delhi. While dismissing the leave to defend application
RC.REV. 9/2OLO Page No.1 of 4 t o/o \ 2010:DHC:11239
,tq, ,\.
@ \a filed by the petitioner/tenant, an eviction order was also passed in favour of the respondent/landlady. Howeve,r, counsel for the petitioner states that orders may be passeO today, not only in respect of the first floor, but also the terrace of the suit premises under her occupation.
Matter is still at the stage of admission. T[ough notice was not issued on the present petition, counsel for the respondent entered appearance in terms of the order dated l8th January, 2010. Both the parties have addressed arguments at length. However, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court as to why the impugned order is not in accordance with law. Detailed reasons therefor are, however, not being furnished os, in the course of arguments, the parties have arrived at a settlement and the counsel for the petitioner states, on instructions from 'his client, that the petitioner confines the present petition only to the relief grant of further time, till the end of October, 20It to vacate the tenanted premises. The petitioner withdraws the challenge laid to the impugned
I order and states that she shall remain bound by the same and shall not challenge it in the future. It is further stated that possession of the tenanted premises including the terrace shall be handed over to
RC.REV. I /ZOLO I t @ th tn the respondent upon the expiry of the extended time. The counsel for
! e respondent states that he has consulted his client, who is present
Court and the aforesaid request is acceptable to her, subject to the petitioner furnishing the usual undertaking to the Court to vacate the suit premises on or before 31.10.2011. ., In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, the present petition is disposed of with the consent of the parties on the following lines:-
(i) The petitioner shall remain in possession of the tenanted premises including the terrace portion, till 31't October, 2OII, and immediately thereafter, she shall hand over vacant, peaceful, physical possession thereof to the respondent.
(ii) The parties agree that the petitioner shall pay rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent, payable on or'before the 7th day of each calendar month, till the vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises is handed over by her to the respondent/landlady.
Both the parties confirm that there are no arreard of rent in respect of the tenanted premises.
(iii) The petitioner shall continue to clear the electricity and water bills of the tenanted premises by paying the same directly to the concerned authorities and shall furnish a 'No Dues Certificate' to the respondent at the time of handing over vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises.
(iv) The petitioner shall not create any third party interest in the suit premises during the duration of her stay.
RC.REV. I lz0t0 Page No.3 of 4 -\r' \J (v) In case, the respondent expires before 31tt October, 2O!1, the petitioner shall hand over vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises to her legal heirs, without any demur.
(vi) Both the parties agree that they shall withdraw their respective litigations filed against each other in respect of the tenanted premises pending before various courts, within a period of two weeks.
The petitioner shall file an undertaking to the Court within two weeks, specifically including therein the aforesaid $erms and conditions of settlement, with a copy to the other side. In case, the aforesaid undertaking is not filed by the petitioner the stipulated time, the
Registry shall place the matter in the Court forthwith.
Counsels for the parties have explained the aforesaid orders in vernacular to their respective parties, who are present in the Court.
The parties agree to-remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement and in token of their acceptance, they have affixed their signatures in the margin of the order sheet ato;g with that of their counsels.
The petition is disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI,J a APRrL 16, 2O1O sn RC.REV. 9lz0t0
N$,,^- &W'r_.0r", C NAL rNl >urrn J ,fuJ.ttY +n ?*Nt^/
N&-.j'sl^Jla* u\"fu+ ,t- $o{,+=h l7 . e1 ,2olo u'ev'
. /' '
JUDGMENT