Delhi High Court
Narender Kumar Manchanda vs Hemant Kumar Talwar on 12 September, 2018
$~21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 12th September, 2018
+ RC REV. 105/2018
NARENDER KUMAR MANCHANDA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anip Sachthey, Ms. Anjali
Chauhan & Ms.Ria Sachthey,
Advs.
versus
HEMANT KUMAR TALWAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Suresh Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
CM Nos. 35668-669/2018
1. The Additional Rent Controller, by his order dated 28.11.2017
on the petition (E-82A/17/2016) of the respondent/non-applicant had
issued an eviction order against the applicant under Section 14 (1) (e)
of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The applicant had challenged the
said order by RC Rev. 105/2018. Appearing in person with his counsel
on 20.03.2018, however, he abandoned the prayer, submitting that the
revision petition was not pressed insofar as it challenged the order of
eviction seeking instead grant of time for vacation of the demised
premises. With the consent of both parties, the said time was granted
till 30th June, 2019, subject, inter alia, to the condition of the petitioner
herein furnishing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Rent
Controller within ten days of the said order on the lines indicated in
the directions.
2. The applicant did not furnish the undertaking within the period
specified. He, instead, preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) no.
16229/2018 before the Supreme Court. The said petition, was,
however, withdrawn and dismissed accordingly by order dated
13.07.2018, the applicant having taken the liberty to approach this
Court by way of a review.
3. Review petition was filed on the ground that the counsel
engaged for the revision petition did not have the authorization to
make submissions to the effect that the revision petition was not
pressed on merits. The said review petition and applications filed
therewith were, however, also withdrawn and dismissed accordingly
by order dated 30.08.2018.
4. On 31.08.2018, the present applications were brought before
this Court seeking extension of time for submission of undertaking in
terms of directions in the order dated 20.03.2018. Notice was issued,
as prayed, on the said applications for 4th September, 2018. Non-
applicant, by reply, has resisted the prayer in the applications pointing
out that the order of eviction has already been executed on 31.08.2018.
The non-applicant, on being asked, even otherwise, is not inclined to
accede to the request of the applicant for he to be given liberty to avail
of the extended stay in the subject premises in terms of the order dated
20.03.2018. The order of eviction had become executable since
undertaking was not furnished within the time in terms of order dated
20.03.2018. The order has consequently already been executed.
5. Against this backdrop, there is no reason why status quo ante be
restored.
6. The applications are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
nk
