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 CSfOS)No.l132/2008 lANo.14734/2009 in CStOSl No.1508/2008 lANo. 14762/2009 nCSrOSl No.1509/2008 lANo. 14741/2009 nCSfOS)No.1510/2008 lANo. 14717/2009 nCSfOSl No.1511/2008 lANo. 14742/2009 nCSfOS)No.1512/2008 lANo.14750/2009 nCSfOS)No.1513/2008 lANo. 14725/2009 nCSfOS)No.1524/2008 lANo. 14754/2009 nCSfOS)No.1525/2008 lANo. 14722/2009 nCSfOS)No.1526/2008 lANo. 14747/2009 nCSfOS)No.1527/2008 lANo.14748/2009 nCSfOSl No.1528/2008 lANo. 14753/2009 nCSfOS)No.1529/2008 lANo.14763/2009 nCS/QS)No.1530/2008 lANo.14759/2009 nCSfOS)No.1532/2008 lANo. 14730/2009 nCSfOSl No.1534/2008 lANo. 14738/2009 nCSrOSl No.1536/2008 lANo.14752/2009 nCSfOS)No.1537/2008 lANo.14749/2009 nCSfOS)No.1538/2008 lANo. 14727/2009 nCSrOS)No.1539/2008 lANo. 14726/2009 nCSrOSl No.1540/2008 lA No. 14728/2009 nCSfOS)No.l541/2008 lANo. 14743/2009 nCS(QS)No.1542/2008 lANo. 14761/2009 nCS/OSl No.1543/2008 lA No. 14760/2009 nCSfOS)No.1544/2008 lANo. 14764/2009 nCSfOS)No.1545/2008 lANo. 14756/2009 nCSrOS)No.1546/2008 lANo. 14736/2009 nCSfOSl No.1547/2008 lANo. 14765/2009 nCSfOSlNo.1548/2008 lANo. 14746/2009 nCSfOSl No.1549/2008 lANo. 14723/2009 nCSfOS)No.1857/2008 lANo. 14724/2009 nCSfOSlNo.1858/2008 lA No. 14719/2009 nCSrOSl No.1859/2008 lA No. 14729/2009 in CSfOSl No.1860/2008
2010:DHC:10398
* Mr Khosla says that the reliefsought in the present applications is common. It is 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 ofthe demised premises. In rejoinder Mr Khosla says possession was offered but since it was not taken, only to safeguard the property in issue the possession is 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 ofthe 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 is made clear thatthe withdrawal ofthe suit shall be without prejudice to any stand taken by either party in the suits filed by the defendants.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the suits and the applications stand dismissed as withdrawn.
FEBRUARY03,2010 RAJIV SHAKDHER,J mb ,, 2010:DHC:10398
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 CSfOS)No.l132/2008 lANo.14734/2009 in CStOSl No.1508/2008 lANo. 14762/2009 nCSrOSl No.1509/2008 lANo. 14741/2009 nCSfOS)No.1510/2008 lANo. 14717/2009 nCSfOSl No.1511/2008 lANo. 14742/2009 nCSfOS)No.1512/2008 lANo.14750/2009 nCSfOS)No.1513/2008 lANo. 14725/2009 nCSfOS)No.1524/2008 lANo. 14754/2009 nCSfOS)No.1525/2008 lANo. 14722/2009 nCSfOS)No.1526/2008 lANo. 14747/2009 nCSfOS)No.1527/2008 lANo.14748/2009 nCSfOSl No.1528/2008 lANo. 14753/2009 nCSfOS)No.1529/2008 lANo.14763/2009 nCS/QS)No.1530/2008 lANo.14759/2009 nCSfOS)No.1532/2008 lANo. 14730/2009 nCSfOSl No.1534/2008 lANo. 14738/2009 nCSrOSl No.1536/2008 lANo.14752/2009 nCSfOS)No.1537/2008 lANo.14749/2009 nCSfOS)No.1538/2008 lANo. 14727/2009 nCSrOS)No.1539/2008 lANo. 14726/2009 nCSrOSl No.1540/2008 lA No. 14728/2009 nCSfOS)No.l541/2008 lANo. 14743/2009 nCS(QS)No.1542/2008 lANo. 14761/2009 nCS/OSl No.1543/2008 lA No. 14760/2009 nCSfOS)No.1544/2008 lANo. 14764/2009 nCSfOS)No.1545/2008 lANo. 14756/2009 nCSrOS)No.1546/2008 lANo. 14736/2009 nCSfOSl No.1547/2008 lANo. 14765/2009 nCSfOSlNo.1548/2008 lANo. 14746/2009 nCSfOSl No.1549/2008 lANo. 14723/2009 nCSfOS)No.1857/2008 lANo. 14724/2009 nCSfOSlNo.1858/2008 lA No. 14719/2009 nCSrOSl No.1859/2008 lA No. 14729/2009 in CSfOSl No.1860/2008
2010:DHC:10398
* Mr Khosla says that the reliefsought in the present applications is common. It is 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 ofthe demised premises. In rejoinder Mr Khosla says possession was offered but since it was not taken, only to safeguard the property in issue the possession is 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 ofthe 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 is made clear thatthe withdrawal ofthe suit shall be without prejudice to any stand taken by either party in the suits filed by the defendants.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the suits and the applications stand dismissed as withdrawn.
FEBRUARY03,2010 RAJIV SHAKDHER,J mb ,, 2010:DHC:10398
JUDGMENT