Suchit Prasad Jain v. Neeraj Puri

Delhi High Court · 22 Dec 2022 · 2022:DHC:5836
Tushar Rao Gedela
CM(M) 1453/2022
2022:DHC:5836
civil petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court modified an order directing deposit of rent arrears by the petitioner, allowing deposit at a higher quantum with withdrawal rights limited to agreed rent, pending final trial.

Full Text
Translation output
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005836
CM(M) 1453/2022 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on: 22.12.2022
CM(M) 1453/2022, CM APPL. 55938/2022 & CM APPL.
55939/2022 SUCHIT PRASAD JAIN ..... Petitioner
versus
NEERAJ PURI ..... Respondent For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Agrawal, Advocate.
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Respondent : Mr. Chandra Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Puri in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)

1. With the consent of parties, the present petition is taken up for disposal. [ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

2. After some hearing and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that interests of justice would be sub-served if the impugned order dated 01.10.2022 is modified.

3. As per the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to deposit the arrears arising up till that date. Both the counsel have consented that Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005836 CM(M) 1453/2022 2 the petitioner be directed to deposit the rent and the arrears of the rent @ 3200 Sq. ft. for the demised premises before the learned Trial Court. Out of this, Respondent landlord would be entitled to the agreed rent and its arrears @ 2498.37 Sq. ft. and withdraw the same. The balance amount would be retained by the learned Trial Court to be disbursed to the party, which is found entitled to, as per the final judgment to be passed by the Trial Court.

4. The aforesaid modification is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either of the parties, who shall be entitled to raise all contentions before the learned Trial Court, which is yet to decide the lis.

5. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the future rent would be deposited by the petitioner @ 3200 Sq. ft., on regular basis. It is also directed, that out of the future rent, the respondent landlord would be entitled to withdraw at the aforesaid rate of 2498.37 Sq. ft.

6. Deposit, as directed above be made within thirty days from today. Interest, if any, would be ascertained by the learned Trial Court during trial.

7. In view of the consent, the impugned order dated 01.10.2022 stands modified, as above. Nothing remains to be decided by this Court. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

8. The learned Trial Court may continue its proceedings.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. DECEMBER 22, 2022