Narender Kumar Manchanda v. Hemant Kumar Talwar

1. The Additional Rent Controller, by his order dated 28.11.2017 on the petition (E-82A/17/2016) of the respondent/non-applicant had issued an eviction order against the applicant under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The applicant had challenged the said order by RC Rev. 105/2018. Appearing in person with his counsel on 20.03.2018, however, he abandoned the prayer, submitting that the revision petition was not pressed insofar as it challenged the order of eviction seeking instead grant of time for vacation of the demised premises. With the consent of both parties, the said time was granted till 30th June, 2019, subject, inter alia, to the condition of the petitioner 2018:DHC:5926 herein furnishing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller within ten days of the said order on the lines indicated in the directions.

2. The applicant did not furnish the undertaking within the period specified. He, instead, preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) NO. 16229/2018 before the Supreme Court. The said petition, was, however, withdrawn and dismissed accordingly by order dated 13.07.2018, the applicant having taken the liberty to approach this Court by way of a review.

3. Review petition was filed on the ground that the counsel engaged for the revision petition did not have the authorization to make submissions to the effect that the revision petition was not pressed on merits. The said review petition and applications filed therewith were, however, also withdrawn and dismissed accordingly by order dated 30.08.2018.

4. On 31.08.2018, the present applications were brought before this Court seeking extension of time for submission of undertaking in terms of directions in the order dated 20.03.2018. Notice was issued, as prayed, on the said applications for 4th September, 2018. Nonapplicant, by reply, has resisted the prayer in the applications pointing out that the order of eviction has already been executed on 31.08.2018. The non-applicant, on being asked, even otherwise, is not inclined to accede to the request of the applicant for he to be given liberty to avail of the extended stay in the subject premises in terms of the order dated 20.03.2018. The order of eviction had become executable since undertaking was not furnished within the time in terms of order dated 20.03.2018. The order has consequently already been executed.

5. Against this backdrop, there is no reason why status quo ante be restored.

6. The applications are dismissed. R.K.GAUBA, J. SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 nk