Pramila Chauhan v. Satya Prakash Gupta

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 633/2016 PRAMILA CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate.

versus SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mitthan Lal, Advocate with respondent in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

O R D E R

% 11.07.2016 In view of Notification No.1078/G-4/Genl./DHC dated 06th July, 2016, the cases fixed for 08th July, 2016 have been taken today. Admittedly, the possession of the premises had been handed back to the petitioner on 25th May, 2016.

However, learned counsel for petitioner presses the contempt petition on the ground that an amount of Rs.1,12,000/- is payable by the respondent towards arrears of occupational charges.

During the course of hearing, it transpires that petitioner has already filed an execution petition seeking the same relief. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner states that at least the occupational charges between 31st March, 2016 and 25th May, 2016 should be paid by the respondent.

Learned counsel for respondent, on instructions of respondent, who is personally present in Court, states that the user and occupational charges as determined by the Court shall be paid from 31st March, 2016 till the date of vacation within a period of two weeks.

The statement made by learned counsel for respondent is accepted by this Court and respondent is held bound by the same. Consequently, present contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to agitate all his grievances in the execution petition that is already pending.

MANMOHAN, J JULY 11, 2016 js