WPMS/1013/2011
2023 Latest Caselaw 2397 UK

SL.          Office Notes,
No.   Date      reports,
               orders or                  COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
             proceedings
             or directions
                  and
              Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures
                             Review Application (MCC No. 55 of 2012)
                             In
                             WPMS No. 1013 of 2011
                             Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Hemant Mahra, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.

3. The review application has been moved for reviewing the judgment and order dated 07.06.2011, whereby, the writ petition was dismissed; however, the petitioners were granted ten months' time to vacate the shop in question and handover its vacant and peaceful possession to respondent no. 1. The petitioners were further directed to give an undertaking to that effect in writing before the prescribed authority.

4. The main ground in the review application is that the shop was released for the need of Sharad Kumar Agarwal (the son of respondent no. 1), who died on 30.12.2011, and since the need was setup for Sharad Kumar Agarwal, who now died; therefore, the need of the landlord has completely eclipsed.

5. In response to this review application, the counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1, and in the counter affidavit it is stated that, firstly, the tenant, the petitioner, did not furnish an undertaking in compliance of the order dated 07.06.2011 within stipulated period of six weeks and after expiry of six weeks period, the tenant again approached to this Court whereupon he was granted further time to furnish the undertaking. Thereafter, the review applicant filed his undertaking alongwith an affidavit.

6. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, it is further submitted that after the death of Sharad Kumar, the son of respondent no. 1, there is need of his wife Smt. Babita Agawal and two children namely Anshul Agarwal and unmarried minor daughter Kumari Shikha Agarwal. The need of shop in dispute, therefore, is still continuing.

7. The release application was filed for the need of respondent no. 1 as well as Mr. Sharad Kumar, who is no more, and since, in such a situation, the need of his widow and his two children cannot be overlooked as the same continues.

8. Senior counsel for the respondent Mr. Arvind Vashistha submits that even otherwise the period as stipulated in the undertaking given by the petitioner before the prescribed authority has already been expired.

9. In view of the observation as made above, there is no scope of interference to the judgment rendered by this Court dated 07.06.2011 and as such there is no merit in the review application and is misconceived and, accordingly, the review application is dismissed.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 22.08.2023 PR