Satish v. Ranjeet Singh

$-11-19 & * IN xilE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM(]\4) 625/2016 VINOp '

Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate Kapoor & Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocates Respondent i Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate '

627/2016 SATISH Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocates'

;

!

^ 628/2016 :

RAJKUMAR Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocates!

629/2016 SATPAL By:AMULYA

. Kapoor & Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocates 630/2016 MANOJ Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocates 631/2016 MAHINDER Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocates . versus 632/2016 ^^^^^UKESH Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocates

633/2016 BALRAJ * Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocates Respondent !

^ CM(hi) 634/2016 MANOJ Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocates ;

;

636/2016 VINOD Mr. D.K. Yati, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

ORDER

% 01.07.2016 CM Nos. 23757/2016. 23761/2016. 23763/2016. 23765/2016. 23768/2016. 23772/2016. 23775/2016. 23776/2016. 23779/2016. 23798/2016 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed off.

Nos.625/2016. 627-634/2016. 636/2016 Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate appears for the respondent and dispensed with the notice..

It is the submission of Mr. Kirti Uppal, the learned Senior Advocate i for the petitioners that the respondent had filed two petitions under Sections 14(l)(a) and 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('DRC Act') against the petitioners. He states, that petitions under Section 14(l)(a) were decreed on 16^*^ July,- 2015/3'^'^ June, 2015 respectively. The petitions under Section 14(l)(e) were decreed vide orders dated 7^"^ January, 2015 and 2U^ March, 2015 respectively against which the petitioners had approached this Court. This Court vide orders dated 19 May, 2016 had set aside the decrees and listed the matters before the Additional Rent Controller oh 8^^ July, 2016. Mr. Uppal states, on instructions, that, on May, 2,016, appeals against the orders/decrees dated 16'*^ July, 2015/3'^'' June, 2015 in petitions under Section 14(l)(a) of the DRC Act were filed by the petitioners before the Rent Control Tribunal ('RCT') but the same were withdrawri and aU re-filed again on 19 June, 2016 along with an application for stay. The said

appeals are now listed on 5^*^ July, 2016. According to him, it is in the execution proceedings arising from the orders/decrees dated 16"^ July, IQlS/y^ June, 2016, the impugned orders dated June, 2016/31®^ May, 2016 have been passed.

Noting the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that since' the petitioners have filed appeals, which are pending in the Tribunal and the date of hearing is 5^*^ July, 2016, the petitioners shall press their application for stay before the Tribunal on July, 2016.

Having said that, till such time the Tribunal decides the application for stay, the respondent shall maintain status quo as of today with respect to the possession.

With the aforesaid observations, the petitions stand disposed off. V. KAMESW^^O, J (VACATION JUDGE) JULY 01,2016 tp