Manish Kumar Nanda v. Radhey Sham Gupta

ORDER 12;LL.201,0 ' Today, petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 2584/- to the respondent in court. Counsel .for both the parties submits that rent upto November,20L0 stands paid. On the last date hearing, counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not pressing the petition on merits and had requested for two years' time to vacate the premises i.e. upto 3I.L0.20L2. Counsel for respondent had given no objection to that. Accordingly, petitioner was directed to file usual undertaking in terms of settlement on the last date of hearing. Petitioner has filed an undertaking. Copy has already been given to the respondent/tena nt. % i; 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. ft <r' Counsel for respondent has pointed out in para 2 of the undertaking petitioner should mention that he is in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises. Counsel for petitioner/tenant has no objection in this regard. With the permission of the court, petitioner has added in para 2 that "he is in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises". He has added the same in a copy provided to the opposite party also. The undertaking given by the petitioner is accepted and petitioner is given time to vacate the premises in question by 30.L0.20L2. In view of the above, respondent shall not execute the eviction order till 31.10.2012. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ll ? ,-4 t/uv VEENA BIRBALJ NOVEMBER L2,2OLO rs $

* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF RC. REV. 2T9I2OLO MANISH KUMAR NANDA Through : VETSUS DELHI AT NEW DELHI C ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, Adv. RADHEY SHAM GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Sabharawal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTTCE VEENA BTRBAL