Full Text
Translation output
29 to 62
03.02.2010
Present: Mr Arun Khosla,Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr Rajender Agarwal,Advocate for defendant nos 1 &2in CS(OS)Nos.
1132/2008 to CS(OS)No.1860/2008 and for defendant no.l in CS(OS)
No.1860/2008.
+lANo.14740/2009 in CS(OS)No.1132/2008 lANo. 14734/2009 in CSIOS)No.1508/2008 lANo. 14762/2009 lANo. 14741/2009 lANo. 14717/2009 lANo. 14742/2009 lANo. 14750/2009 lANo. 14725/2009 lANo. 14754/2009 lANo. 14722/2009 lANo. 14747/2009 lANo. 14748/2009 lANo. 14753/2009 lANo.14763/2009 lANo. 14759/2009 lANo. 14730/2009 lANo. 14738/2009 lANo.14752/2009 lANo.14749/2009 lANo.14727/2009 lANo. 14726/2009 lANo.14728/2009 lANo. 14743/2009 lANo. 14761/2009 lANo.14760/2009 lANo. 14764/2009 lANo. 14756/2009 lANo. 14736/2009 lANo. 14765/2009 lANo. 14746/2009 lANo.14723/2009 lANo. 14724/2009 lANo. 14719/2009 lANo. 14729/2009 nCSrOS^ No.1509/2008 nCSfOS^ No.l510/2008 nCSrOS^ No.1511/2008 nCSrOS)No.1512/2008 nCSrOS^ No.1513/2008 nCSfOS)No.1524/2008 nCS(OS)No.1525/2008 nCStOS)No.1526/2008 nCSfOS)No.1527/2008 nCSfOS^ No.1528/2008 nCSfOS)No.1529/2008 nCSrOS^ No.1530/2008 nCSfOS)No.1532/2008 nCSfOS^ No.1534/2008 nCSfOS)No.1536/2008 nCSfOS)No.1537/2008 nCSfOSl No.1538/2008 nCSrOS^ No.1539/2008 nCS(OS)No.1540/2008 nCSCOS)No.1541/2008 nCSfOS)No.1542/2008 nCSfOS)No.1543/2008 nCSfOSl No.1544/2008 nCSfOS)No.1545/2008 nCS(OS)No.1546/2008 nCSfOS)No.1547/2008 nCSfOS)No.1548/2008 nCSfOS)No.1549/2008 nCSCOS)No.1857/2008 nCStOS)No.1858/2008 nCSfOS)No.1859/2008 nCS(OS)No.1860/2008
2010:DHC:10394
* Mr Khosla says thatthe reliefsoughtin the present applications is common. Itis not disputed that the plaintiff in the suit had claimed that it was entitled to specific performance ofthe renewalclauseinthe lease deed dated 19.12.2005 whichcommenced 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
Aggarwalfurther states that the defendants have not secured possession ofthe demised premises. Inrejoinder MrKhoslasays possession wasoffered butsinceit wasnottaken, onlyto safeguardthe propertyinissuethe possessionis withthe plaintiff.
Notwithstanding the difference in stand onthe issue ofpossession ofthe demised premises,one fact is clear that the plaintiffdoes 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 ofthe defendants Mr Munish Sehgal at his office bearing no.S-1,AmericanPlaza,InternationalTrade Tower,NehruPlace,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 notprejudice his defence to the claim madeinthe suitsfiled bythe defendants. It is made clear thatthe withdrawal ofthe suit shall be without prejudice to any stand taken by either partyinthe suitsfiled bythe defendants.
In the aforesaid circumstances,the suits and the applications stand dismissed as withdrawn.
FEBRUARY 03,2010 mb
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J
2010:DHC:10394
03.02.2010
Present: Mr Arun Khosla,Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr Rajender Agarwal,Advocate for defendant nos 1 &2in CS(OS)Nos.
1132/2008 to CS(OS)No.1860/2008 and for defendant no.l in CS(OS)
No.1860/2008.
+lANo.14740/2009 in CS(OS)No.1132/2008 lANo. 14734/2009 in CSIOS)No.1508/2008 lANo. 14762/2009 lANo. 14741/2009 lANo. 14717/2009 lANo. 14742/2009 lANo. 14750/2009 lANo. 14725/2009 lANo. 14754/2009 lANo. 14722/2009 lANo. 14747/2009 lANo. 14748/2009 lANo. 14753/2009 lANo.14763/2009 lANo. 14759/2009 lANo. 14730/2009 lANo. 14738/2009 lANo.14752/2009 lANo.14749/2009 lANo.14727/2009 lANo. 14726/2009 lANo.14728/2009 lANo. 14743/2009 lANo. 14761/2009 lANo.14760/2009 lANo. 14764/2009 lANo. 14756/2009 lANo. 14736/2009 lANo. 14765/2009 lANo. 14746/2009 lANo.14723/2009 lANo. 14724/2009 lANo. 14719/2009 lANo. 14729/2009 nCSrOS^ No.1509/2008 nCSfOS^ No.l510/2008 nCSrOS^ No.1511/2008 nCSrOS)No.1512/2008 nCSrOS^ No.1513/2008 nCSfOS)No.1524/2008 nCS(OS)No.1525/2008 nCStOS)No.1526/2008 nCSfOS)No.1527/2008 nCSfOS^ No.1528/2008 nCSfOS)No.1529/2008 nCSrOS^ No.1530/2008 nCSfOS)No.1532/2008 nCSfOS^ No.1534/2008 nCSfOS)No.1536/2008 nCSfOS)No.1537/2008 nCSfOSl No.1538/2008 nCSrOS^ No.1539/2008 nCS(OS)No.1540/2008 nCSCOS)No.1541/2008 nCSfOS)No.1542/2008 nCSfOS)No.1543/2008 nCSfOSl No.1544/2008 nCSfOS)No.1545/2008 nCS(OS)No.1546/2008 nCSfOS)No.1547/2008 nCSfOS)No.1548/2008 nCSfOS)No.1549/2008 nCSCOS)No.1857/2008 nCStOS)No.1858/2008 nCSfOS)No.1859/2008 nCS(OS)No.1860/2008
2010:DHC:10394
* Mr Khosla says thatthe reliefsoughtin the present applications is common. Itis not disputed that the plaintiff in the suit had claimed that it was entitled to specific performance ofthe renewalclauseinthe lease deed dated 19.12.2005 whichcommenced 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
Aggarwalfurther states that the defendants have not secured possession ofthe demised premises. Inrejoinder MrKhoslasays possession wasoffered butsinceit wasnottaken, onlyto safeguardthe propertyinissuethe possessionis withthe plaintiff.
Notwithstanding the difference in stand onthe issue ofpossession ofthe demised premises,one fact is clear that the plaintiffdoes 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 ofthe defendants Mr Munish Sehgal at his office bearing no.S-1,AmericanPlaza,InternationalTrade Tower,NehruPlace,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 notprejudice his defence to the claim madeinthe suitsfiled bythe defendants. It is made clear thatthe withdrawal ofthe suit shall be without prejudice to any stand taken by either partyinthe suitsfiled bythe defendants.
In the aforesaid circumstances,the suits and the applications stand dismissed as withdrawn.
FEBRUARY 03,2010 mb
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J
2010:DHC:10394
JUDGMENT