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
6 paragraphs · 230 wordsRakesh Kumar Jain, J.—In this case, following order was passed on 06.7.2010:-
Present: Mr. Rajiv Prashad, Advocate, for the petitioners The learned counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority on merits and prays that in view of the fact that the petitioner, who is a widow lady, is running business here, be given sufficient time to vacate the premises. Notice of motion for 19.8.2010. Eviction stayed.
After the aforesaid order was passed, the lawyer has been changed. Now, Mr. N.K. Verma, Advocate, holding the brief on behalf of the petitioners states that he wanted to argue the case on merit.
I am afraid, this kind of permission cannot be granted in view of the order passed by this Court on 06.7.2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that some reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premises subject to payment of entire arrears of rent.
In view of the totality of circumstances, the petitioners are granted six months'' time to vacate the demised premises which shall be subject to their furnishing an undertaking before the Rent Controller, Ropar, within a period of two weeks from today and on deposit of the entire arrears of rent, if any due. If the needful is not done, as directed by this Court, the concession granted shall cease to operate.