Vinod Kumar vs Kanij Fatima

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, Advocate, for petitioner, Sri Udai Chandani, Advocate for respondent and perused the record.

Writ petition is directed against the orders dated 31.1.2012 and 12.7.2012 (Annexures 9 and 11 to writ petition). The concurrent findings recorded by Courts below could not be shown perverse or incorrect in any manner. Learned counsel for petitioner could not point out any error apparent on face of record in the orders impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. He, however, at this stage prayed that petitioner may be allowed sometime to vacate the premises in question.

Learned counsel for respondentlandlord stated that in case petitioner hands over vacant possession of premises in question within such time as directed by this Court, he would have no objection to such indulgence.

In the above facts and circumstances, it is provided that petitioner, if files an affidavit within one week from today before the Trial Court containing an undertaking that he shall vacate the premises in question and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord respondent within three months from today, the proceedings for execution of judgments impugned in this writ petition shall not proceed.

However, in case of any default, the above indulgence granted by this Court shall automatically cease and it would be open to landlord to proceed for execution of impugned orders immediately thereafter in accordance with law.

It is also provided that in case the petitionertenant after filing affidavit, as aforesaid, and enjoying deferment of vacation of premise in question failed to comply with any of the conditions, as aforesaid, he shall be liable to pay for such non compliance of pious undertaking given to the Court an exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/ which shall also be recovered from petitionertenant alongwith execution proceedings, if such necessity arises.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is dismissed.