Virender Rastogi vs Brij Mohan Juneja
2010 Latest Caselaw 948 Del

Citation : 2010 Latest Caselaw 948 Del
Judgement Date : 18 February, 2010

Delhi High Court

Virender Rastogi vs Brij Mohan Juneja on 18 February, 2010

Author: Hima Kohli

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    R.C.R. 90/2009 and R.C.R. 91/2009

                                            Date of decision: 18.02.2010

IN THE MATTER OF :


VIRENDER RASTOGI                                      ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. Ashok Mahajan, Advocate


                        versus

BRIJ MOHAN JUNEJA                                      ..... Respondent
                        Through: Mr. S.M. Chopra, Advocate with
                        Mr. Brij Mohan Juneja, respondent in person.

  CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may           No
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?          No

     3. Whether the judgment should be                  No
        reported in the Digest?

HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petitions are directed against a common order

dated 25.04.2009, dismissing two separate applications for leave to

defend filed by the petitioner/tenant in respect of two different shops

bearing private nos.3 and 2 situated on the ground floor of premises

bearing No.D-14, Pandav Nagar, near Mother Dairy, Delhi. After

dismissing the leave to defend applications of the petitioner/tenant on

the ground that he had failed to raise any triable issue therein, an

eviction order was passed in favour of the respondent/landlord in

respect of both the shops, with a caveat that the same shall not be

given effect to for a period of six months from the date of the

impugned order.

2. When the present petitions were listed for admission on

24.09.2009, the Court passed the following orders:

"These two revision petitions have been filed against the common eviction order whereby the petitioner/tenant has been directed to vacate the two different adjoining shops in the respondent/landlord's premises. The requirement set up by the respondent landlord was for setting up his own office to run his transportation business. The requirement of the respondent for at least one office premises to run his business cannot be doubted since he has no other alternative suitable accommodation to run his office. However, the eviction order as aforesaid has been passed in respect of both the shops of the petitioner/tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that the petitioner is willing to surrender one of the two shops after negotiation with the respondent.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, issue notice to the respondent returnable on 18.02.2010. Till the next date the eviction orders shall not be executed."

3. After notice was issued to the respondent, counsel enters

appearance and states that his client has agreed to the proposal of the

petitioner that he may be permitted to retain shop No. 3, which is

subject matter of eviction petition No.E-181/2008 and R.C.R. 90/2009,

while entitling the respondent/landlord to seek eviction of shop No.2,

subject matter of eviction petition No.E-182/2008 and R.C.R.91/2009.

Counsel for the petitioner confirms the fact that the aforesaid

settlement has been arrived at between the parties. He, however,

states that the petitioner has instituted a suit for specific performance

in respect of both the shops, registered as Suit No. 776/2009, which is

pending before the court of Shri Gulshan Kumar, Additional District

Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi. He submits that the present