Nidhi Poddar vs Ankit Jain
2025 Latest Caselaw 1108 Del

Delhi High Court

Nidhi Poddar vs Ankit Jain on 1 August, 2025

Author: C. Hari Shankar

Bench: C. Hari Shankar

                    $~29
                    *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                    +      RFA(COMM) 102/2025 & CM APPL. 10349/2025
                           NIDHI PODDAR                               .....APPELLANT
                                              Through: Mr. Sacchin Puri, Sr. Adv. with
                                              Mr. Vikas Goyal, Mr. Harsh Vardhan, and
                                              Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advs.

                                              versus

                           ANKIT JAIN                                .....RESPONDENT
                                              Through: Mr. Piyush Chaudhary

                           CORAM:
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
                                              ORDER (ORAL)

                    %                           01.08.2025

                    C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. Following the order passed on the last date of hearing, Mr. Piyush Chaudhary has appeared on behalf of the respondent. He acknowledges that the entire amounts in terms of para 33 of the judgment and decree dated 19 November 2024 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) in CS(Comm) 280/2024 has been paid except for electricity and water charges.

2. Mr. Puri, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that the electricity and water charges would be paid forthwith.

RFA(COMM) 102/2025

3. Mr. Chaudhary has also handed over, in Court, a demand draft for the security deposit which had been paid by the appellants.

4. Mr. Puri seeks, on instructions, two weeks' further and final opportunity for his client to vacate the tenanted premises.

5. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal by extending the time for the appellant to vacate the tenanted premises by two weeks from 3 August 2025.

6. It is made clear that no further extension of time would be granted.

7. The appellant would also pay the electricity and water charges in respect of the premises for the period during which he remained in occupation thereof within a week from today.

8. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

AUGUST 1, 2025 AR

RFA(COMM) 102/2025