Paramananda Paul v. Anju Sharma

$~A-54 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CM(M) 972/2016 and CM Nos. 35546-48/2016 PARAMANANDA PAUL ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Ajay Gupta, Advocate.

versus ANJU SHARMA ..... Respondent Through Mr.R.P.Sharma and Mr.Vaibhav Mehra, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 26.09.2016 1.

By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 03.09.2015 passed by the appellate court in an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

2.

The contentions of the petitioner are twofold. He submits that he entered into the premises as a licensee by virtue of a license deed dated 01.08.1992. He secondly submits that after expiry of the last license deed which expired on 31.01.1998, the petitioner has become owner by way of adverse possession.

3.

By the impugned order, the appellate court rejected both the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on an advance notice submits that he has no objection in case the submission of the petitioner is

noted that he is not a tenant protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act and he is in the premises as a licensee. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, he may continue to pay the rent and arrears of rent @ Rs.1980 per month as directed by the trial court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no objection to the same and submits that his client is not a tenant and has no concern with the Delhi Rent Control Act. 5.

Hence, the petitioner shall continue to pay rent @ Rs.1980 per month including all the arrears to the respondent without prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties raised in the present petition. 6.

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. JAYANT NATH, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 rb