Full Text
Translation output
I
29 to 62
03.02.2010 9^/
Present: Mr Arun Khosla, Advocate for the plaintiff
Mr RajenderAgarwal, Advocate for defendant nos 1 & 2 in CS(OS) Nos.
1132/2008 to CS(OS) No. 1860/2008 andfor defendant no.l in CS(OS)
No. 1860/2008.
+ lANo. 14740/2009 in CSrOS^ No.l 132/2008 lA No. 14734/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1508/2008 lA No. 14762/2009 in CSCOS^ No. 1509/2008 lA No. 14741/2009 in CSrOS^ No.1510/2008 lANo. 14717/2009 in CSfOS) No. 1511/2008 lA No. 14742/2009 in CSrOS^ No.1512/2008 lANo. 14750/2009 in CSrOS^ No.1513/2008 lA No. 14725/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1524/2008 lA No. 14754/2009 in CSrOS^ No. 1525/2008 lA No. 14722/2009 in CSrOS) No. 1526/2008 lA No. 14747/2009 in CSrOS^ No. 1527/2008 lA No. 14748/2009 in CSCOS') No.1528/2008 lA No. 14753/2009 in CSrOS^ No.1529/2008 lA No. 14763/2009 in CSrOS) No. 1530/2008 lA No. 14759/2009 in CSrOS^ No. 1532/2008 lA No. 14730/2009 in CSrOS) No. 1534/2008 lA No. 14738/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1536/2008 lA No. 14752/2009 in CSCOS^ No. 1537/2008 lA No. 14749/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1538/2008 lA No. 14727/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1539/2008 lA No. 14726/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1540/2008 lANo. 14728/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1541/2008 lANo. 14743/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1542/2008 lANo. 14761/2009 in CSrOS^ No.1543/2008 lA No. 14760/2009 in CSfOS) No. 1544/2008 lA No. 14764/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1545/2008 lA No. 14756/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1.546/2008 lA No. 14736/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1547/2008 lA No. 14765/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1548/2008 lA No. 14746/2009 in CSrOS^ No. 1549/2008 lA No. 14723/2009 in CSCOS^ No. 1857/2008 lA No. 14724/2009 in CSCOS) No.1858/2008 lANo. 14719/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1859/2008 lA No. 14729/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1860/2008
2010:DHC:10386
* Mr Khosla says that the rehef sought inthe present apphcations iscommon. Itis not disputed that the plaintiff in the suit had claimed that it was entitled to specific performance ofthe renewal clause in the lease deed dated 19.12.2005 which commenced on 07.12.2007 and would have expired on 07.12.2010. However, in the captioned applications there, is an averment to the effect that the demised premises have been surrendered to the defendants as on 31.01.2010. Mr Aggarwal refutes this position. Mr
Aggarwal further states that the defendants have not secured possession of the demised premises. In rejoinder Mr Khosla says possession was offered but since it was not taken, ^ safeguard the property in issue the possessionis with the plaintiff
Notwithstanding the difference in stand on the issue ofpossession ofthe demised premises, one fact is clear that the plaintiff does not wish to continue with the suit for specific performance and, towards that end he is ready and willing to hand over the possession. Mr Khosla says that he shall hand over the key by today i.e., 03.02.2010 at
4.00 pm to the representative of the defendants Mr Munish Sehgal at his office bearing
• no. S-1, American Plaza, International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
In these circumstances, since the suit for specific performance is rendered infructuous Mr Khosla wishes to withdraw the suit. Mr Khosla's concern is that this should not prejudice his defence to the claim made in the suits filed by the defendants. It ismade clear that the withdrawal ofthe suit shall be without prejudice toany stand taken by either party inthe suits filed by the defendants.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the suits and the applications stand dismissed as withdrawn.
FEBRUARY 03,2010 RA7IV SH^EDHER, J mb
'•-i
2010:DHC:10386
03.02.2010 9^/
Present: Mr Arun Khosla, Advocate for the plaintiff
Mr RajenderAgarwal, Advocate for defendant nos 1 & 2 in CS(OS) Nos.
1132/2008 to CS(OS) No. 1860/2008 andfor defendant no.l in CS(OS)
No. 1860/2008.
+ lANo. 14740/2009 in CSrOS^ No.l 132/2008 lA No. 14734/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1508/2008 lA No. 14762/2009 in CSCOS^ No. 1509/2008 lA No. 14741/2009 in CSrOS^ No.1510/2008 lANo. 14717/2009 in CSfOS) No. 1511/2008 lA No. 14742/2009 in CSrOS^ No.1512/2008 lANo. 14750/2009 in CSrOS^ No.1513/2008 lA No. 14725/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1524/2008 lA No. 14754/2009 in CSrOS^ No. 1525/2008 lA No. 14722/2009 in CSrOS) No. 1526/2008 lA No. 14747/2009 in CSrOS^ No. 1527/2008 lA No. 14748/2009 in CSCOS') No.1528/2008 lA No. 14753/2009 in CSrOS^ No.1529/2008 lA No. 14763/2009 in CSrOS) No. 1530/2008 lA No. 14759/2009 in CSrOS^ No. 1532/2008 lA No. 14730/2009 in CSrOS) No. 1534/2008 lA No. 14738/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1536/2008 lA No. 14752/2009 in CSCOS^ No. 1537/2008 lA No. 14749/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1538/2008 lA No. 14727/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1539/2008 lA No. 14726/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1540/2008 lANo. 14728/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1541/2008 lANo. 14743/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1542/2008 lANo. 14761/2009 in CSrOS^ No.1543/2008 lA No. 14760/2009 in CSfOS) No. 1544/2008 lA No. 14764/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1545/2008 lA No. 14756/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1.546/2008 lA No. 14736/2009 in CSfOS^ No.1547/2008 lA No. 14765/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1548/2008 lA No. 14746/2009 in CSrOS^ No. 1549/2008 lA No. 14723/2009 in CSCOS^ No. 1857/2008 lA No. 14724/2009 in CSCOS) No.1858/2008 lANo. 14719/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1859/2008 lA No. 14729/2009 in CSfOS^ No. 1860/2008
2010:DHC:10386
* Mr Khosla says that the rehef sought inthe present apphcations iscommon. Itis not disputed that the plaintiff in the suit had claimed that it was entitled to specific performance ofthe renewal clause in the lease deed dated 19.12.2005 which commenced on 07.12.2007 and would have expired on 07.12.2010. However, in the captioned applications there, is an averment to the effect that the demised premises have been surrendered to the defendants as on 31.01.2010. Mr Aggarwal refutes this position. Mr
Aggarwal further states that the defendants have not secured possession of the demised premises. In rejoinder Mr Khosla says possession was offered but since it was not taken, ^ safeguard the property in issue the possessionis with the plaintiff
Notwithstanding the difference in stand on the issue ofpossession ofthe demised premises, one fact is clear that the plaintiff does not wish to continue with the suit for specific performance and, towards that end he is ready and willing to hand over the possession. Mr Khosla says that he shall hand over the key by today i.e., 03.02.2010 at
4.00 pm to the representative of the defendants Mr Munish Sehgal at his office bearing
• no. S-1, American Plaza, International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
In these circumstances, since the suit for specific performance is rendered infructuous Mr Khosla wishes to withdraw the suit. Mr Khosla's concern is that this should not prejudice his defence to the claim made in the suits filed by the defendants. It ismade clear that the withdrawal ofthe suit shall be without prejudice toany stand taken by either party inthe suits filed by the defendants.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the suits and the applications stand dismissed as withdrawn.
FEBRUARY 03,2010 RA7IV SH^EDHER, J mb
'•-i
2010:DHC:10386
JUDGMENT