← Library
High Court of DelhiRC.REV./305/2017

Mohd Saleem v. Farzana Malik

2017-08-24Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw2 pages

$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 305/2017 MOHD SALEEM ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Prem Chand Ganganiya, Adv.

Versus

FARZANA MALIK ..... Respondent Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

O R D E R

% 09.10.2017 CM No.36094/2017 (for exemption) 1.

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2.

The application is disposed of.

Review Petition No.411/2017 3.

The petitioner / tenant seeks review of the order dated 24th August, 2017 only to the extent the same in para no.3 thereof records the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that the argument of the counsel for the petitioner instead of "....that the petitioner / tenant, besides being a tenant in the premises subject matter of this petition, is also a tenant in two adjoining premises under the father and sister of the respondent / landlady......", as recorded, was "....that the petitioner / tenant, besides being a tenant in the premises subject matter of this petition, was also a tenant in two adjoining premises under the father and sister of the respondent / landlady......".

RC.REV. 305/2017

4.

It is stated that the petitioner / tenant now claims to be in possession of the premises, in which he was earlier a tenant under the father and sister of the respondent / landlady, as an agreement purchaser. It is further argued that the father and sister of the respondent / landlady are now using para no.3 of the order dated 24th August, 2017, in the other proceedings, to the prejudice of the petitioner/tenant.

5.

None appears for the respondent / landlady inspite of advance copy stated to have been given.

6.

Though the order dated 24th August, 2017 was dictated in open Court and must have been dictated in accordance with what had transpired on that date but it is clarified that any recording of the oral argument in one case cannot affect other cases which will be decided as per their own merits. 7.

With the aforesaid clarification, the review petition is disposed of. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J OCTOBER 09, 2017 „gsr‟..

RC.REV. 305/2017