Full Text
Translation output
$-11-19&43 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CM(]\4)625/2016
VINOp Petitioner '
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate
■ with Ms.Sahiba Pantel,Ms.Priyanka
Kapoor&Mr.D.K.Yati,Advocates
VINOp Petitioner '
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate
■ with Ms.Sahiba Pantel,Ms.Priyanka
Kapoor&Mr.D.K.Yati,Advocates
VERSUS
RANJEETSINGH Respondent i
Through: Mr.Ashok Kumar,Advocate '
Through: Mr.Ashok Kumar,Advocate '
WITH
CM(M)627/2016
SATISH Petitioner with Ms.Sahiba Pantel,Ms.Priyanka
Kapoor& Mr.D.K.Yati,Advocates' ;
SATISH Petitioner with Ms.Sahiba Pantel,Ms.Priyanka
Kapoor& Mr.D.K.Yati,Advocates' ;
VERSUS
RANJEETSINGH Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashok Kumar,Advocate ! ^
Through: Mr.Ashok Kumar,Advocate ! ^
WITH
CM(M)628/2016 :
RAJKUMAR Petitioner , with Ms.Sahiba Pantel,Ms.Priyanka
Kapoor& Mr.D.K.Yati,Advocates!
RAJKUMAR Petitioner , with Ms.Sahiba Pantel,Ms.Priyanka
Kapoor& Mr.D.K.Yati,Advocates!
VERSUS
Through: Mr.Ashok Kumar,Advocate
WITH
CM(M)629/2016
SATPAL Petitioner 2016:DHC:8620 .Kapoor& Mr.D.K.Yati,Advocates
SATPAL Petitioner 2016:DHC:8620 .Kapoor& Mr.D.K.Yati,Advocates
VERSUS
■
RANJEET SINGH Respondent
RANJEET SINGH Respondent
WITH
CM(M)630/2016
MANOJ Petitioner with Ms. Sahiba Pantel,Ms.Priyanka
Kapoor& Mr.D.K.Yati,Advocates
MANOJ Petitioner with Ms. Sahiba Pantel,Ms.Priyanka
Kapoor& Mr.D.K.Yati,Advocates
VERSUS
WITH
CM(M)631/2016
MAHINDER Petitioner .
MAHINDER Petitioner .
VERSUS
WITH
CM(M)632/2016
^^^^^UKESH Petitioner , Kapoor&Mr.D.K.Yati,Advocates
^^^^^UKESH Petitioner , Kapoor&Mr.D.K.Yati,Advocates
VERSUS
I
WITH
CM(M)633/2016
BALRAJ Petitioner * with Ms. Sahiba Pantel,Ms.Priyanka
I
BALRAJ Petitioner * with Ms. Sahiba Pantel,Ms.Priyanka
I
VERSUS
RANJEET SINGH Respondent ! ^
WITH
CM(hi)634/2016
MANOJ Petitioner with Ms. Sahiba Pantel, Ms.Priyanka
MANOJ Petitioner with Ms. Sahiba Pantel, Ms.Priyanka
VERSUS
;
WITH
;
CM(M)636/2016
VINOD Petitioner with Ms. Sahiba Pantel, Ms.Priyanka
VINOD Petitioner with Ms. Sahiba Pantel, Ms.Priyanka
VERSUS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
01.07.2016 CM Nos. 23757/2016. 23761/2016. 23763/2016. 23765/2016.
23768/2016. 23772/2016. 23775/2016. 23776/2016. 23779/2016.
23798/2016 Allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.
The applications stand disposed off.
CM(M)Nos.625/2016.627-634/2016.636/2016 Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate appears for the respondent and dispensed with the notice..
It is the submission of Mr. Kirti Uppal,the learned Senior Advocate i for the petitioners that the respondent had filed two petitions under Sections
14(l)(a) and 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('DRC Act') against the petitioners. He states,that petitions under Section 14(l)(a)were decreed on 16^*^ July,- 2015/3'^'^ June,2015 respectively. The petitions under
Section 14(l)(e) were decreed vide orders dated 7^"^ January,2015 and 2U^
March,2015 respectively against which the petitioners had approached this
Court. This Court vide orders dated 19 May, 2016 had set aside the decrees and listed the matters before the Additional Rent Controller oh 8^^
July, 2016. Mr. Uppal states, on instructions, that, on May, 2,016, appeals against the orders/decrees dated 16'*^ July, 2015/3'^'' June, 2015 in petitions under Section 14(l)(a)ofthe DRC Act were filed bythe petitioners before the Rent Control Tribunal('RCT')butthe same were withdrawriand
1 aU re-filed again on 19 June,2016 along with an application for stay. The said appeals are now listed on 5^*^ July, 2016. According to him, it is in the execution proceedings arising from the orders/decrees dated 16"^ July, IQlS/y^ June, 2016, the impugned orders dated June, 2016/31®^ May, 2016 have been passed. , Noting the aforesaid position,this Court is ofthe view that since'the petitioners have filed appeals, which are pending in the Tribunal and the date ofhearing is 5^*^ July,2016,the petitioners shall press their application
I for stay before the Tribunal on July,2016.
Having said that, till such time the Tribunal decides the application for stay,the respondent shall maintain status quo as oftoday with respect to the possession.
With the aforesaid observations, the petitions stand disposed off.
V.KAMESW^^O,J (VACATION JUDGE)
JULY 01,2016 tp
01.07.2016 CM Nos. 23757/2016. 23761/2016. 23763/2016. 23765/2016.
23768/2016. 23772/2016. 23775/2016. 23776/2016. 23779/2016.
23798/2016 Allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.
The applications stand disposed off.
CM(M)Nos.625/2016.627-634/2016.636/2016 Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate appears for the respondent and dispensed with the notice..
It is the submission of Mr. Kirti Uppal,the learned Senior Advocate i for the petitioners that the respondent had filed two petitions under Sections
14(l)(a) and 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('DRC Act') against the petitioners. He states,that petitions under Section 14(l)(a)were decreed on 16^*^ July,- 2015/3'^'^ June,2015 respectively. The petitions under
Section 14(l)(e) were decreed vide orders dated 7^"^ January,2015 and 2U^
March,2015 respectively against which the petitioners had approached this
Court. This Court vide orders dated 19 May, 2016 had set aside the decrees and listed the matters before the Additional Rent Controller oh 8^^
July, 2016. Mr. Uppal states, on instructions, that, on May, 2,016, appeals against the orders/decrees dated 16'*^ July, 2015/3'^'' June, 2015 in petitions under Section 14(l)(a)ofthe DRC Act were filed bythe petitioners before the Rent Control Tribunal('RCT')butthe same were withdrawriand
1 aU re-filed again on 19 June,2016 along with an application for stay. The said appeals are now listed on 5^*^ July, 2016. According to him, it is in the execution proceedings arising from the orders/decrees dated 16"^ July, IQlS/y^ June, 2016, the impugned orders dated June, 2016/31®^ May, 2016 have been passed. , Noting the aforesaid position,this Court is ofthe view that since'the petitioners have filed appeals, which are pending in the Tribunal and the date ofhearing is 5^*^ July,2016,the petitioners shall press their application
I for stay before the Tribunal on July,2016.
Having said that, till such time the Tribunal decides the application for stay,the respondent shall maintain status quo as oftoday with respect to the possession.
With the aforesaid observations, the petitions stand disposed off.
V.KAMESW^^O,J (VACATION JUDGE)
JULY 01,2016 tp
JUDGMENT