Satyendra Bansal vs Dipti Goel
2019 Latest Caselaw 5492 Del

$~14

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                Judgment delivered on: 07.11.2019

+      RC.REV. 164/2016 & CM APPL. 9257/2016
SATYENDRA BANSAL                                    ..... Petitioner
                                 versus

DIPTI GOEL                                          ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner:       Mr. V. Shukla, Advocate

For the Respondent:       Mr. Satish Sharma and Mr. Sanjay Agnihotri,
                          Advocates

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                             JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 29512/2016 (for bringing on record subsequent events) For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The subsequent events are taken on record. The application is disposed of.

RC.REV. 164/2016

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 12.10.2015, whereby the Leave to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Rent Controller and an eviction order passed.

2. Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide necessity under Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 from one Shop of property bearing No. 37, Baldev Park, Delhi, more particularly as shown in red colour in the site plan attached to the eviction petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner under instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court in person, seeks leave to withdraw the petition.

4. Petitioner who is present in Court in person, undertakes that he shall vacate and handover the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent on or before 31.12.2020. Petitioner further undertakes that he shall pay Rs. 6,500/- per month as use and occupation charges till the time he hands over the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent on or before 31.12.2020.

5. Petitioner further undertakes that he shall clear all water, electricity and other dues/charges in respect of the tenanted premises before he vacates the premises. He further undertakes that he shall not sublet, assign or part with the possession of the tenanted premises or any part thereof. He further undertakes that he shall not cause any damage to the tenanted premises and shall hand over the possession of the same in the condition as it exists today subject to normal wear and tear.

6. The undertaking is accepted.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents under instructions from the respondents submits that the undertaking is also acceptable to the respondents.

8. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

9. Subject to petitioner filing an affidavit of undertaking in the above terms within a period of two weeks from today, execution of the impugned order dated 12.10.2015 shall remain stayed till 31.12.2020.

10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

NOVEMBER 07, 2019 'rs'