Full Text
W.P.(C) 112/2018
SH. SUBHASH CtlAND GOYAL Petitioner
Through: Mr Harpreet Singh, Mr Arunesh Sharma and Mr Sourabh Grover, Advocates.
SH. SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL Petitioner
Through: Mr Harpreet Singh, Mr Arunesh Sharma and Mr Sourabh Grover, Advocates.
Through: Mr Devesh Singh, ASC (Civil), GNCTD with Ms Minal Sehgal, Advocate.
08.01.2018 CM No.508/2018 in W.P.(C) 112/2018
CM No.612/2018 in W.P.(C) 148/2018 2018:DHC:8789
1 -.V •
•f • •
ORDER
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(0 112/2018 W.P.(0 148/2018
2. The principal grievance ofthe petitioner in the present petitions is that the Lease Deed dated 07.12.201,[6] presented by the petitioner pertaining to one shop on the ground floor bearing private number 3 having an area measuring 10.45 Sq. Mtr., which is a part of the property bearing no.662/8 having an area measuring"12.[5] sq. yards built on the part of the plot no.2 situated at main Patpargarij Road, near Shiv Puri, Bhola Building Illaqa * 1 - Shahdaia.'Delhi-l 10051 is riotbeing registeredwith the Sub-Registrar.
3. The principal reason for the Sub-Registrar not registering the above m^entioned J^ease Deed is the status quo order dated 22.02.2016 passed" by this Court In Shk Harish Chandra Bola v. Smf. Meenakshi Bkola & Ors,: W.P,(C) 92/2016. In terms of the said order, this Court had directed that status quo be maintained with regard to the possession and title of the following thi'ee properties (1)' Property bearing ho.11/221 nieasuruig 100 sq. j^ards., Geeta Colony, belhi-n0031.- ' ' ", (ii) ' Ofiice'-Space iSfo;F-2 on IV Floor of K-Block, Plot No.3 (Bfahmcluit Tower), Sector-18, Noid^, UP'measuring 488.31 ' ' sq. ft. super area.' '
(iii) Free-holdpropertybearingH.No.662/8, P'atparganj Road,Delhi measuring 100 sq. yds. (now remaining 60 sq. yds.).
4. Mr Harpreet Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the property being let out under the Lease Deed dated 07.12.2016 is not a part ofthe suit property in CS(OS) 92/2016. He further states that the plaintiff therein (Shri Harish Chander Bhola) has also made a statement before the District Magistrate that he has no dispute with the e petitioner,
5. It does appear on a plain reading ofthe order dated 22.02.2016 passed in CS(OS) 92/2016 that the description of the property being let out by the Lease Deed dated 07.12.2016 is included in the description of the property stated in the said order. It is for this reason that the Sub-Registrar has not registered the Lease Deed dated 07.12.2016.
6. This Court is of the view that since the question involves a clarification that whether the property in question is covered in terms of the status quo dated 22.02.2016, it would be apposite for the petitioner to seek necessary clarification from the Court concerned with that matter.
7. The petitions are disposed ofwith liberty to the petitioner to do so. VIBHUBAKHRU, J JANUARY 08,2018 MK