Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/810/2018 on 30 January, 2021
WPMS No. 810 of 2018
With
Review Application No.9380/2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the
respondent/review applicant.
On Friday i.e. 29.01.2021 when the
Court was rising after completing the
Court's proceedings, a mention was made
by the learned counsel for the
respondent/applicant to the review
application that the matter is urgent, for the
reason being that the executing court has
fixed a date on 01.02.2021. Hence, this
Court agreed to take up the matter on
Saturday i.e. 30.01.2021. In relation
thereto, the appropriate permission as
required for the constitution of the Bench on
Saturday, since being a holiday, was sought
by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, which was
granted and the matter was listed for V.C.
hearing.
The counsel for the respondent had
filed a review application supported with the
delay condonation application explaining 17
days delay which has chanced in filing the
application. Since the delay, itself is not
being seriously opposed, the same would
stand condoned and the review application
itself is being taken up on its own merit.
When the case was taken up, in fact,
in the review application, various grounds,
which were mentioned therein were
altogether a personal ground and personal
incapacities of the respondent, due to which
she has contended that she was unable to
communicate with her counsel due to which
the judgment was rendered on account of
lack of instructions being supplied by the
respondent to her counsel, hence, she has
submitted that there were various
causalities in the families, hence she has
sought enlargement of time to vacate the
premises.
When the matter was taken up at the
notified time i.e. 11:00 a.m., counsel for
the petitioner had submitted that he has got
no instructions from his client i.e.
petitioner/landlord in order to make any
statement with regards to the enlargement
of time which was prayed to be granted to
the respondent/tenant for vacating the
premises. Hence, on the request of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, he would
submit that he will be completing his
instructions. The matter was directed to be
posted at 04:00 p.m. on 30.01.2021 and on
the revival of the proceedings, the counsel
for the petitioner had submitted that based
on the instructions, which he has received
from the landlord, the landlord has agreed
that one and half years time may be
granted to the respondent/tenant to vacate
the premises subject to the condition, to be
imposed by the Court. Excepting those
arguments the review application is partly
disposed of in the following manner:
The respondent/petitioner would
submit an undertaking by way of an
affidavit, before the prescribed authority
within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order
giving an undertaking to the effect that she
would be vacating the premises and
handing over the vacant and peaceful
possession of the premises in question to
the petitioner landlord within a period of
one and half years from today.
She would also submit in the
undertaking to the effect that during this
extended period of occupancy of one and
half years, the respondent/tenant would
pay the rent double the rent which was
already paid by her during the pendency of
the proceedings before the court below,
which would also ensure to be remitted by
10th of each month and if in case of default
in remittance of the rent, the judgment
would be put to execution. The
tenant/respondent would also in the
undertaking mention that she will not alter
or change the nature of the construction of
the tenement in question in any manner
whatsoever except without a prior written
consent from the petitioner landlord and
would not further create any sub tenancy
during this extended period. It is clarified
that the extension of time granted to vacate
the premises is subject to the condition that
she would not be creating any sub tenancy
during this period. Subject to the aforesaid
assurance, the review application preferred
by the respondent/landlord is disposed of
accordingly.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
30.01.2021
Arti
