e-147/15 none for the respondent no.2 despite service of...

E-147/15

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Bhagwati Parsad for the petitioner.

None for the respondent no.1

None for the respondent no.2 despite service of

summon on 11.06.2015.

Matter be listed for arguments on the leave to defend

application on 22.12.2015.

Respondent no.1 is at liberty to file the rejoinder with

advance copy to the opposite side

(Sunil Kumar)ARC-2/Central

Tis Hazari Courts18.09.2015

DR-41/14

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel for the petitioner.

Harish Kumar LR of the respondent.

None for the other LRs.

Let fresh notice be issued to the other LRs on filing of

PF along with memo of parties on 30.10.2015.



DR-283/14

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Sujit Gupta for the petitioner.

Counsel Sh. A.K. Basin for the respondent no.2.

On behalf of applicant an application u/o 22 Rule 3

r/w. 151 CPC moved.

Matter be listed for filing of reply and disposal of

pending application on 30.10.2015.



E-509/14/10

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Rishi Kumar Verma along with Petitioner.

None for the respondent.

Matter is considered u/s. 14(2) of the DRC Act.

Report perused.

Vide Order dt. 26.03.2015, the respondent Smt. Sunita

Devi was held defaulter in payment of rent. As per the report of the

Nazir, the respondent has not complied with the order passed during

the pendency of this case under section 15(1) of DRC Act and also

not deposited the entire arrear of rent to the petitioner.

In the circumstances, respondent is not entitled for

benefit under section 14 (2) DRC Act. Benefit under section 14(2)

of DRC Act is not hereby extended to the respondent and the

respondent hereby is liable to evict the premises.

File be consigned to Record Room after necessary

compliance.



DR-36/15

18.09.2015

Present: None for the parties.

On perusal of the records, it is revealed that no

objections have been filed by the respondent to the present

application of the petitioner within the stipulated period of time as

the respondent got served on 12.08.2015.

In the circumstances, the present petition is disposed of

and the respondent is entitled to receive the rent, as deposited by the

petitioner in the Court, without prejudice to the rights and

contentions of either parties. The respondent is at liberty to

withdraw the rent without prejudice to his rights. File be consigned

to Record Room.



DR-225/14

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Atik Ahmed for the petitioner.

None for the respondent no.1.

None for the LRs of the respondent.2.

Let notice of application u/o 22 Rue 4 r/w. 151 CPC

sent to the LR of the respondent no.2 on filing of PF/RC to be

returnable on 30.09.2015.



E-265/15

18.09.2015

The Fresh petition for eviction under Section 14 (1) (e)

read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act

58 of 1959) is received by way of assignment. It be checked and

registered as per rules.

Present: Counsel Sh. Vimal Kumar for the petitioner.

Heard.

Let notice be issued to the respondent in accordance

with the provision of Section 25-B of the DRC Act in the prescribed

proforma under schedule III of the Act on filing of PF along with by

registered post acknowledgment due for 02.11.2015.



M-U-05/15

18.09.2015

Present : None for the petitioner.

Be awaited for the petitioner for 12:00 Noon.



At 12:00 NoonPresent : As above.

Be awaited for the petitioner for 2:00 P.M.



At 2:00 PM.


None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite

repeated calls since morning neither the petitioner has filed PF/RC to serve

the respondent till date. Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed-

in-default as well as for non-prosecution. File be consigned to Record

Room.



DR-156/14

18.09.2015


Counsel Sh. Surender Chauhan for respondent.








At 2:00 PM.

Present : As above.

None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated

calls since morning. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is not

appearing from the last two dates of hearing. Therefore, the present petition

stands dismissed-in-default. File be consigned to Record Room.



DR-129/15

18.09.2015









At 2:00 PM.

Present : As above.

None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated

calls since morning. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is not

appearing from the last date of hearing. Therefore, the present petition stands

dismissed-in-default. File be consigned to Record Room.



E-363/14/00

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Nagender Yadav with LR of the petitioner.

Respondent in person.

It is stated by the parties that the present petition has

been settled between them and the LRs of the petitioner have

received the possession of the suit property today itself from the

respondent. Pursuant to the settlement, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one

lacs) in cash has been handed over by the petitioner to the

respondent today itself.

Statements of both the parties have been recorded

separately to this effect.

At this stage, respondent requests a week's time to

remove his lying articles in the suit premises. To this, the petitioner

states that he will allow only if a specific date be given.

In the circumstances, respondent is directed to remove

his articles from the premises of the petitioner on or before

25.09.2015. Further, the respondent is also directed to accompany

the petitioner to the premises for taking the photographs of the

articles lying there for ascertaining. Both the parties are directed to

adhere the settlement terms.

The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the rent as

deposited by the respondent in the court.

In view of the statements of the parties, the present

petition stands disposed of as settled.

File be consigned to Record Room.



Ex. 18/15 & 19/15

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Gaurav Shankar for the DH.

None for the JD.

It is stated by the counsel for the DH that the suit property is

in a dilapidated condition, however, the DH has received the possession of

the property and present execution petition stands satisfied.

Statement of the counsel for the DH has been recorded


In view of the statement of the counsel for the DH, the

present execution petition stands disposed of as satisfied.



Tis Hazari Courts 18.09.2015

Ex. 16/15

18.09.2015

Present : Counsel Sh. Girish Gaur for the DH.

Counsel Sh. Suraj Pal alongwith JD.

It is stated by the counsel for the DH that the DH has

received the possession of the suit property and present execution petition

stands satisfied.

Statement of the counsel for the DH has been recorded


In view of the statement of the counsel for the DH, the

present execution petition stands disposed of as satisfied.




E-283/14/10

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Ajay Kumar for the petitioner.

Son of the respondent.

An application is moved on behalf of respondent for seeking

adjournment on the ground that his counsel is not available. The same is

opposed by the counsel for the petitioner.

Perusal of the record shows that an application u/s. 151 CPC

is pending since long and the respondent has already been given the last

opportunity way back in the year 2014 itself, therefore, the application in

hand is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Matter be put up for FA for 04.11.2015.



E-987/14/07

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Sandeep Jindal for the petitioner.

Respondent in person.

Heard.

As the counsel for the respondent is not available, matter be

listed for arguments and disposal of pending application of petitioner u/s.

151 CPC for 11.12.2015.



M-8/15

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Girish Gaur for the petitioner.

Counsel Sh. Suraj Pal alongwith respondent.

It is stated by the respondent/ applicant that he has handed

over the possession of the premises in suit to the petitioner and as such, the

present application u/o. 9 rule 13 CPC be disposed of as withdrawn.

Further, the counsel for the petitioner stated that since the petitioner has

received the possession of the property in suit and the respondent /

applicant has prayed to withdraw the present application, the present

application be allowed to be disposed of as withdrawn.

Statements of the counsel for the petitioner as well as

respondent / applicant have been recorded separately to this effect.

In view of the statements, the present application stands

disposed of as withdrawn.




E-559/14/11

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Vinay Gupta alongwith the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

Heard.

Matter be put up for filing of Nazir Report as well as report

by the petitioner regarding deposit of rent by the respondent in compliance

of Order 15 (1) of DRC Act for 23.10.2015.



E-1023/14/08

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Devanand Rai alongwith the petitioner.

Proxy counsel Sh. T.A. Khan alongwith the respondent.

An application u/s. 151 CPC has been moved on behalf of

the respondent. Copy supplied.

Be put up for disposal of the aforesaid application as well as

for PE for 28.09.2015.



E-153/14/11

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Suman Malhotra for the petitioner.

Proxy counsel for the respondent.

No RW present.

Last and final opportunity to lead RE is granted to the

respondent for 09.11.2015.



Ex-27/15 & 28/15

17.09.2015

Fresh execution filed. It be checked and registered as per

rules.

Present: None for the DH.

Be put up for consideration on 18.09.2015.



18.09.2015

Present : None for the DH.

Be put up for appearance of the DH & FP for

09.10.2015.



DR-155/15, 156/15 & 157/15

18.09.2015

Present: None for the parties.

Summons issued to the respondent received back with report

served on 31.08.2015. There is still time to file objections.

Matter be listed for FP for 09.10.2015.



E-351/14/12

18.09.2015

Present: Son of the petitioner.

Respondent is already Ex-parte.

Today, the matter is listed for RE but no witness is present

on behalf of the respondent, therefore, RE stands closed.

Be put up for Final Arguments on 02.11.2015.



E-656/14/11

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. R.K. Arora alongwith the petitioner.

Sh. Manjeet Singh Bhamra, Counsel for the respondent.

PW-1 Sh. Gian Chand Batra is present, further cross-

examined in part and his remaining cross-examination is deferred.

Matter be listed for remaining cross-examination of PW-1 in

PE and RPE for 08.10.2015 at 12:00 Noon.



E-265/14/08

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Vishal Gupta for the petitioner.

Counsel Sh. J.K. Shrivastava for the respondents.

Arguments heard on the application of respondents u/s. 151

CPC filed on 20.10.2008.

In the application, it is stated on behalf of respondent that the

petitioners evidence has already been closed and when the matter is at the

stage of Respondent evidence, petitioner no.1 died and his LRs were

brought on record and thereafter, the matter was fixed for PE and now, the

petitioner is taking undue advantage of denovo starting their evidence

again on merits to cover up their lacunas in their case. It is further stated

that LR of the petitioner no.1 has taken the possession of deceased

petitioner no.1 and they are bound with the evidence given by their father

and they are not entitled to lead evidence afresh particularly when PE was

closed. It is prayed that affidavit of evidence submitted by Ram Nath be

returned and the matter be fixed for RE.

On the other side, in the reply, the petitioners submits that

the respondent no.3 had been impleaded as party to the case and after his

addition as new respondent, the petitioner became entitled to lead fresh

evidence, therefore, the application of the respondents is not maintainable

and is liable to be dismissed.

Perusal of the record shows that the present petition was

filed by three petitioners/ landlord against the respondent way back in the

year 1998 and after completing of pleadings, the matter was taken up for

PE and petitioners led their PE and after concluding, the PE was closed on

11.12.2002 and the matter was posted for RE. During this stage, an

application u/o. 1 rule 10 CPC moved by the petitioner for adding one

respondent Varun Goel, who is stated to be the son of respondent no.2 and

the same was allowed and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to file

the replication vide order dt. 15.05.2007. Thereafter, the matter was fixed

again for PE and during that, affidavit of Ram Nath was filed on behalf of

petitioner and subsequent to this, the present application was moved by the

respondent. In the light of the abovesaid backdrop, I am of the considered

opinion that the present application is having force in its contents in light

of the fact that PE was already closed against the respondents no.1 & 2

excluding the subsequent respondent no.3, therefore, the application in

hand is allowed and the petitioner is not entitled to lead evidence again

against the respondents no.1 & 2.

With these observations, application stands disposed of.

Matter be put up for Further Proceedings on behalf of

petitioners for 13.10.2015.



E-571/14/11

18.09.2015

Present: Counsel Sh. Kapil Singhal for the petitioner.

Counsel Sh. K.N. Singh for the respondent.

Arguments heard on the application of respondent u/s. 151

CPC for placing on record his additional affidavit.

It is stated in the application by the respondent that after

filing of the leave to defend application, the ground of eviction of the

petitioner in the present petition has completely changed, as he has

renovated and refurnished the shop bearing No. 38, Ram Nagar Market

and put the same to commercial use in addition to the other shop from

where the petitioner and his son has already been running the business. It

is further stated that the abovesaid fact is very much essential to be

brought on record.

In his reply, the petitioner objected allowing of the abovesaid

application on the ground that the additional affidavit could not be

considered as per the law that after expiry of statutory period of 15 days

for filing of leave to defend. It is further contended that the shop bearing

No.38 was owned by MCD and the same is tenanted one with the

petitioner and the same has been returned back to the MCD and the same

has been reallotted to other person Vinod Kumar Mitha Lal. Further, the

other content of the application of the respondent are denied being wrong.

In view of the submissions of the parties, I am of the

considered view that as the respondent want to place subsequent facts on

record regarding the shop no.38 still available with the petitioner, the

application in hand is allowed. Petitioner is at liberty to file the counter

affidavit to the additional affidavit of the respondent with advance copy of

the same to the opposite side.

Matter be listed for arguments on leave to defend application

on 24.11.2015.



e-147/15 none for the respondent no.2 despite service of...

Documents