Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 156 (DEL)

INDIAN BANK v. N. C. JAIN

2007-01-25

H.R.MALHOTRA, SWATANTER KUMAR

body2007
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE present Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17. 2. 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby a preliminary decree of possession under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure code was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant while keeping the suit pending before it for determination of arrears of rent/damages. ( 2 ) THE correctness and legality of the said decree of possession passed by the learned trial court has been questioned on various grounds. 2. Notice of this appeal was issued by the Division Bench of this court vide its order dated 19th September, 2005 limited to the granting of the period for vacating the premises. After the respondents were served and during the course of hearing, the parties had arrived at a mutual agreement and prayed that the appeal could be disposed of in those terms. An undertaking by way of affidavit was filed by the Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Circle Office, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, new Delhi. The relevant part of the same reads as under:-"undertaking BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT BANK ? TENANT. I, Joseph Anthuvan, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Circle Office World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-1]. That I am the Chief Manager and Principal officer of the Indian Bank and am conversant with the facts of the case in my official capacity and am also duly authorized to swear this undertaking by way of affidavit for and on behalf of the Indian Bank. 2]. that the process of vacation of the suit premises i. e. 264, B-1, Hauz rani Market, New Delhi is underway and the same may take time of about two months. The Bank undertakes to vacate the tenanted premises on or before 15th march, 2007. " ( 3 ) IT has been accepted on behalf of the respondents that they have no objection if the appellant is permitted to vacate the premises by 31st March, 2007 and that the vacation of the premises by the appellant would, in no way, be detrimental to the proceedings pending before the trial court for determination of damages/mesne profits for use and occupation of the premises till that date. ( 4 ) IN view of the undertaking given by way of affidavit and the acceptance of the same by the respondents, we dispose of this appeal by a consented order to the effect that the appellant would vacate and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the respondents on or before 31st march, 2007. The vacation of the premises by the appellant and acceptance of possession thereof by the respondents would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending proceedings before the trial court. ( 5 ) THE appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The parties are left to bear their own costs.