AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 258 wordsAlok Kumar Verma, J
Affidavit dated 21.02.2024 (IA No. 5 of 2024), filed by the respondent-landlord, is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Bharat Tewari, learned counsel with Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent.
Respondent- Mohd. Najim is present in-person.
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, submitted that the revisionist-tenant wants one and a half years time to vacate the shop-in-question.
Today, the respondent has filed the said Affidavit (IA No. 5 of 2024) and submitted that the respondent has no objection if the tenant is granted ten months’ time to vacate the shop-in-question and revisionist pays an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent as occupational charges from 06.09.2020 onwards till handing over the actual vacant possession of the shop by the revisionist to the respondent.
Revisionist agrees with the said proposal.
In view of the said submissions of the parties, the revisionist may not be evicted from the shop-in-question till 31.12.2024.
The revisionist is directed to vacate the shop-in-question and hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the respondent by 31.12.2024. In case of default in payment, the revisionist shall be liable to vacate the shop-in-question even before 31.12.2024, but, in accordance with law.
Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2021, passed by learned trial court in SCC Suit No. 7 of 2020, is modified accordingly.
With the consent of both the parties, the present Revision (No. 3 of 2022) is disposed of.