R.C.R. 90/2009 and R.C.R. 91/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + R.C.R. 90/2009 and R.C.R. 91/2009 Date of decision: 18.02.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : VIRENDER RASTOGI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Mahajan, Advocate versus BRIJ MOHAN JUNEJA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.M. Chopra, Advocate with Mr. Brij Mohan Juneja, respondent in person. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petitions are directed against a common order dated 25.04.2009, dismissing two separate applications for leave to defend filed by the petitioner/tenant in respect of two different shops bearing private nos.3 and 2 situated on the ground floor of premises bearing No.D-14, Pandav Nagar, near Mother Dairy, Delhi. After dismissing the leave to defend applications of the petitioner/tenant on the ground that he had failed to raise any triable issue therein, an R.C.R. 90/2009 and R.C.R. 91/2009 Page 2 of 4 eviction order was passed in favour of the respondent/landlord in respect of both the shops, with a caveat that the same shall not be given effect to for a period of six months from the date of the impugned order. 2. When the present petitions were listed for admission on 24.09.2009, the Court passed the following orders: “These two revision petitions have been filed against the common eviction order whereby the petitioner/tenant has been directed to vacate the two different adjoining shops in the respondent/landlord’s premises. The requirement set up by the respondent landlord was for setting up his own office to run his transportation business. The requirement of the respondent for at least one office premises to run his business cannot be doubted since he has no other alternative suitable accommodation to run his office. However, the eviction order as aforesaid has been passed in respect of both the shops of the petitioner/tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that the petitioner is willing to surrender one of the two shops after negotiation with the respondent. In view of the aforesaid submissions, issue notice to the respondent returnable on 18.02.2010. Till the next date the eviction orders shall not be executed.” 3. After notice was issued to the respondent, counsel enters appearance and states that his client has agreed to the proposal of the petitioner that he may be permitted to retain shop No. 3, which is subject matter of eviction petition No.E-181/2008 and R.C.R. 90/2009, R.C.R. 90/2009 and R.C.R. 91/2009 Page 3 of 4 while entitling the respondent/landlord to seek eviction of shop No.2, subject matter of eviction petition No.E-182/2008 and R.C.R.91/2009. Counsel for the petitioner confirms the fact that the aforesaid settlement has been arrived at between the parties. He, however, states that the petitioner has instituted a suit for specific performance in respect of both the shops, registered as Suit No. 776/2009, which is pending before the court of Shri Gulshan Kumar, Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi. He submits that the present agreement between the parties is without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties in the aforesaid suit. 4. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsels for the parties, both the petitions are disposed of. While the impugned order dated 25.04.2009 passed in respect of shop No. 2, subject matter of RCR 91/2009 is upheld, the impugned order dated 25.04.2009 passed in respect of shop No.3, subject matter of RCR 90/2009 is set aside. Counsel for the respondent/landlord states that his client shall not proceed further with the eviction petition filed in respect of the said shop No.3. This shall be without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties in the pending suit for specific performance, mentioned above. 5. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall hand over vacant peaceful possession of the aforesaid shop R.C.R. 90/2009 and R.C.R. 91/2009 Page 4 of 4 No.2 to the respondent on or before 31st March, 2010. An affidavit by way of undertaking to the Court shall be filed by the petitioner within one week, with a copy to the counsel for the respondent. 6. Both the revision petitions are disposed of. (HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 18, 2010 rkb