Judgment · High Court · 2007
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 s. 14(1)(e)
Judgment
Present: (cid:9) Mr.R.K.Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner in person. with petftioner Mr.C.P.Wig, Mr.Rajinder Mathur & Ms.Lakshfta Sethi, Advocates for the Respondent. + CM (M) 895/2005 * (cid:9) The parties have setted their disputes in terms (cid:9)whereof the petitioner/occupant of the tenanted premises does not want to I. (cid:9)prosecute the petition. Learned couns& for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, states that the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition but time may be granted tiD 301h ApriL 2007 to hand over the vacant and peacefu' possession of the tenanted premises. fr, The petitioner undertakes to the Court to hand over vacant and peacefu' possession of the tenanted premises on or before 30th ApriL 2007, not to sub-let or part with possession and to pay the rent/damages at the rate of the last paid rent month by month in advance of 7 of each month apart from &ectricity and water charges. The undertaking given by the petitioner is accepted and the formal undertaking be fied within 10 days with advance copy to 'earned counsel for the respondent. List before the Registrar for verification of undertaking on 101h January, 2007. In view of the petitioner having agreed to withdraw the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:30.01.2024 10:43 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. P present petition and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession on or before 301h April, 2007 the respondent does not press the claim for damages in separate suits filed by the respondent. There would also be no occasion to prosecute the petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This statement would naturally have effect the moment the possession is handed over by the petitioner to the respondent. The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. December 18, 2006 JK (cid:9) SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. -- C, I
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — s. 14(1)(e).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 30 Apr 2007. The bench was SANJAY KISHAN KAUL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.