Full Text
Translation output
$-27 & 28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 692/2015 &C.M.NO.13528/2015
SOHAN SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr. Deepak Gupta and Mr. Navjot Kwatra, Advocates
CM(M) 692/2015 &C.M.NO.13528/2015
SOHAN SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr. Deepak Gupta and Mr. Navjot Kwatra, Advocates
VERSUS
PRAVEEN GROVER & ORS Respondents
Through Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Yashvir Thakur and Ms. Sahiba Pantel, Advocates
Through Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Yashvir Thakur and Ms. Sahiba Pantel, Advocates
CM(M) 694/2015 & C.M.No. 13533/2015
OM PRAKASH KHURANA
Petitioner
Through Mr. Deepak Gupta and Mr. Navjot Kwatra, Advocates
OM PRAKASH KHURANA
Petitioner
Through Mr. Deepak Gupta and Mr. Navjot Kwatra, Advocates
VERSUS
PRAVEEN GROVER & ORS Respondents
Through Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Yashvir Thakur and Ms. Sahiba Pantel, Advocates
Through Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Yashvir Thakur and Ms. Sahiba Pantel, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
29.01.2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
05.06.2015 vide which his application seeking to bring on record certain
2016:DHC:8792 s' alleged subsequent facts was not permitted by the learned Rent
Controller. This application has beenadmittedly filed on 04.04.2015.
After some arguments learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he has no objection if these alleged subsequent facts aretaken on record; the Trial Court while disposing of the eviction petition will deal with these alleged subsequent facts and read them as a part of application seeking leave to defend filed bythe tenant. The reply filed to this application will be treated as the additional reply by the landlordto the afore-noted application.
It is made clear that any observation made in this order will not effect the merits of the order to be passed by the competent authority.
Trial Court will endeavour to dispose ofthepetitions expeditiously.
Petitions disposed of INDERMEET KAUR, J JANUARY 29,2016 gb
2016:DHC:8792
29.01.2016 Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
05.06.2015 vide which his application seeking to bring on record certain
2016:DHC:8792 s' alleged subsequent facts was not permitted by the learned Rent
Controller. This application has beenadmittedly filed on 04.04.2015.
After some arguments learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he has no objection if these alleged subsequent facts aretaken on record; the Trial Court while disposing of the eviction petition will deal with these alleged subsequent facts and read them as a part of application seeking leave to defend filed bythe tenant. The reply filed to this application will be treated as the additional reply by the landlordto the afore-noted application.
It is made clear that any observation made in this order will not effect the merits of the order to be passed by the competent authority.
Trial Court will endeavour to dispose ofthepetitions expeditiously.
Petitions disposed of INDERMEET KAUR, J JANUARY 29,2016 gb
2016:DHC:8792
JUDGMENT