9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a,Adv., Ms. Bijoylakshmi, Adv. And Mr. Amit Mittal, Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. The petitioners' claiming to be tenants in relation to the property in dispute averred that they were paying a rent of ₹ 300 per month vide Rent Deed dated 28th October, 1991, with respondent nos. 2 3. There was dispute whether the premises were under the management of these two respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the parties. The courts returned the finding that the Trial Court had ignored the fact that Nigam possessed the full right to get the disputed Chabutra vacated and had there been any tenancy, the same stood terminated as back as in the year 1987. The property was encroaching upon the road as is evident even from the photographs filed before us including Exh. P-1. Against the order of the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ie against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.11.2006. The Division Bench had relied upon the full Bench judgment of that Court in that regard. Thus, we do not wish to comment on that ground in any further detail. As far as the merits are concerned, we see again no reason to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. It is, keeping in view the facts and circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ages for use and occupation of the premises till that date without default and would not hand over the possession to any other person except the respondents herein.Then the petitioners would not be evicted from the premises till that date. However, we make it clear that it is an option to the petitioners to take advantage of this direction or not. If such an undertaking is not filed within two wee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
