,+.. ' ar1 JU * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 63/2010 & CM. No. 495L/20t0 (stay) MATA DIN SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Advocate with petitioner versus KESHAR DEVI ..... ResPondent Through Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with respondent :.i coRAM: . HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER o/o 29.04.2010 Though the process fee is stated to be lying underobjections, appearance is entered on behalf of the respondent. In the present case, vide order dated 19.03.20L0,limited notice was issued to the respondent only on the aspect of grant of time upto the end of this year i.e., till 3t.L2.20I0, to the petitionerto vacate the t tenanted premises. Today, counsel for the petitioner states on instructions from his client that he is not willing to remain bound by the aforesaid statement made on his behalf, and that he be permitted' to argue the matter afresh on merits. RC.REV.63/2070 Page 7 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA 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. Signature Not Verified On 19.03 .2OIO, counsel for the petitioner/tenant had been heard at length but he was unable to satisfy the Court that the impugned order dated 12.0t 2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlady under Section 14D read with Section 258 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, was not in accordance with law. However, detailed reasons for the said conclusion Were not recorded as in the course of arguments, it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the relief in the petition be confined only to grant of further time, beyond the time granted by the Additional Rent Controller to the petitioner, to vacate the suit premises. Accordingly, after recording the aforesaid request and the statement made that the petitioner would submit the usual undertaking to hand over vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent/landlady on or before the date to be fixed in the presence of the other side on the next date, limited notice to show cause was issued, returnable for today. In these circumstances, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner today that he be permitted to argue the matter afresh, cannot be acceded to. As the petitioner states that he is not Page 2 of 3 RC.REV.63/2070 a /0 I interested in grant of further time beyond the time granted in the impugned order to vacate the suit premises, this Court has no option but to dismiss the Petition. Ordered accordingly. The revision petition is dismissed alongwith the pending application. The interim order dated 19'03.2010 stands vacated' HIMA KOH LI,J APRIL 29, 2OTO rslrkb RC.REV.63/2070 Page 3 of 3