Daya Nand Vs. Virmo Devi
[Civil Appeal No. 4631 of 2009]
Kurian J.
The appellant-tenant has challenged the judgment passed by the High Court declining to interfere with the order passed by the Rent Controller, ordering eviction. The main contention of the appellant is that the respondent is not the owner of the premises.
However, having heard the learned counsel for the parties extensively and having regard to the concurrent findings against the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Taking note of the fact that the appellant is 78 years of age and is reportedly bed ridden and has been occupying this house since 1986, we are inclined to grant time till 31.12.2019, though the appellant prayed for three years. We order accordingly.
The appellant is directed to file a usual undertaking before this Court within a period of three weeks from today. He is also directed to comply with the conditions imposed in the interim order passed by this Court on 01.08.2008.
With the above observations and directions, the Civil Appeal is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
...........................J. (KURIAN JOSEPH)
...........................J. (R. BANUMATHI)
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 23, 2017
