Delhi High Court
Deepak vs Rajpati on 26 May, 2016
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 159/2013
Date of Decision: 26.05.2016
DEEPAK ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.O.P.Saxena, Advocate along
with appellant in person.
versus
RAJPATI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.S.L.Kashyap, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
CM Appln.14681/2016
1. The appellant/applicant is the son of the respondent, Rajpati.
2. The respondent claimed himself to be the lawful owner of
property bearing No.L-270, Mangolpuri, Delhi wherein the appellant
being his elder son was made the permissive user. For the strained
relationship between the families, the appellant/applicant was asked to
vacate the suit premises and on his refusal to do so, a suit for
possession and permanent injunction was filed.
3. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated
07.11.2012 passed in CS No.315/10/2008. The aforesaid judgment of
the Trial Court was partly modified in appeal and the First Appellate
Court set aside the direction of the Trial Court regarding payment of
Rs.2000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the date of
vacating and handing over of the peaceful possession of the suit
property. With respect to the other findings of the Trial Court, the First
Appellate Court concurred with all of them excepting the above.
4. Though a second appeal was filed before this Court but the
same was not pursued any further.
5. By order dated 05.03.2014 a Bench of this Court after recording
the fact that the appeal was not pressed after some arguments, granted
time to the appellant, on his asking, to vacate the suit premises (first
floor of property bearing No.270, L Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi) till
30.04.2016 for which the appellant was directed to give an
undertaking within two weeks of the passing of the order. The Court
by the aforesaid order directed that the appellant shall not be evicted
from the suit premises on or before 30.04.2016. The appellant was,
however, directed to pay the electricity and water charges with respect
to the suit premises for the aforesaid period.
6. The present application seeks extension of time to vacate the
suit premises. It is submitted that the appellant/applicant has three
sons who are studying in junior classes and whose examinations are
round the corner. The applicant is afraid, his children may suffer
irreparably and, therefore, prays for extension of time for vacating the
suit premises for which he had given an undertaking pursuant to the
order of this Court. On the aforesaid application, the respondent was
noticed. Today the respondent is present along with his counsel. He
submits that the conduct and behaviour of the appellant and his wife
and children have been so disgusting and cruel that it would not be
possible for him to concede or agree to any further extension of time
for vacating the suit premises. He has further submitted that for the
period of the stay of the appellant in his house, the respondent and his
wife were tortured beyond limits. The respondent, a retired senior
citizen having attained the age of 73 years and his wife also being a
septuagenarian, submits that it would be unsafe for their lives to
permit the appellant and his family to stay in the suit property any
further.
7. Considering the stand of the respondent, the prayer made on
behalf of the appellant is declined.
8. The appellant is directed to vacate the suit property in terms of
the undertaking given by him before this Court forthwith.
9. The judgment of the First Appellate Court has become
executable.
10. The application is disposed of accordingly.
RSA 159/2013
The second appeal is dismissed as it was not pressed after some
arguments and the appellant agreed to vacate the suit premises by
30.04.2016, which was permitted by this Court with a direction to pay
the electricity and water charges.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
MAY 26, 2016
k
