Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 7 December, 2017
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.3872 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 07, 2017
Sandeep Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
Vijay Kumar
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate
for the respondent.
DEEPAK SIBAL J. (ORAL)
On 27.11.2017, after arguing the matter at length but having received no favourable response from the Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that he had express instructions from his client not to press the present petition on merits. However, he prayed that some reasonable time be granted to the petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises to make alternate arrangements.
On the alternate prayer, notice had been issued to the respondent-landlord, in pursuance to which, Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate has appeared.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has express instructions from his client that the petitioner may be permitted to possess the tenanted premises for a period of three months subject to the petitioner filing his own affidavit in the Court that he would vacate the tenanted premises on the expiry of three months and clear all arrears of 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2017 09:05:42 ::: CR No.3872 of 2017 (O&M) -2- rent as also payment of future rent for the period he occupies the tenanted premises.
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, who is present in Court along with the petitioner, submits that though there are arrears of rent running in lakhs of rupees but the petitioner is not in a position to pay them and therefore, he is not inclined to file the required affidavit before this Court.
In view of the above, the present petition is ordered to be dismissed.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
December 07, 2017
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2017 09:05:42 :::