ORDER

% 26.02.2024 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

1. As requested by learned counsel for petitioner matter is passed-over awaiting the arguing counsel, who is stated to be on his legs in another Court.

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J FEBRUARY 26, 2024/rk Click here to check corrigendum, if any RC.REV. 48/2017

2. In pre-lunch session, the matter was passed-over at request for counsel for petitioner/tenant on the ground that the arguing counsel was on his legs in another court. But now in this call it is submitted by the same counsel for petitioner that the learned senior counsel is in Finland and there is connectivity issue so he cannot join even through video conferencing, RC.REV. 48/2017 Page 2 of 8 though she is ready to address on most of the pending applications. As such I have taken up each pending application and heard both sides.

CM APPL. 12655/2019 (u/s 340 CRPC)

3. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant submits that on this application, she needs adjournment as it is the senior counsel who has to address.

Adjournment on this application is opposed, pointing out that the application has become infructuous.

4. Admittedly, the perjury alleged by way of this application is against the respondent. Also admittedly, the respondent has already passed away. That being so, I find no reason to defer this application. As such the application is dismissed as infructuous.

CM APPL. 16443/2019 (u/s 340 CRPC)

5. This application was filed by the respondent, alleging perjury against the then Director of the petitioner company. But in the interest of expeditious disposal of main proceedings, counsel for respondent seeks permission to withdraw this application. Accordingly the application is dismissed as withdrawn.

CM APPL. 3712/2021 (recalling of orders), CM APPL. 9144/2018 (vacation of stay), CM APPL. 48447/2023 (vacation of stay), CM APPL. 57379/2023 (vacation of stay), CM APPL. 23666/2022 (stay), CM APPL. 4492/2017 (stay) & CM APPL. 15618/2017 (stay)

6. These applications are taken up together as the issue involved is common and according to the respondent/landlord, these applications would reflect repeated defaults on the part of petitioner/tenant in adhering to the schedule of payment of use and occupation charges. I have heard learned counsel for both sides on these applications.

RC.REV. 48/2017 Page 3 of 8

7. The present revision petition was filed by the petitioner/tenant to assail the order of learned Additional Rent Controller whereby leave to contest the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was declined.

8. Vide order dated 28.02.2017, operation of the impugned eviction order was stayed by the predecessor bench, directing the present petitioner/tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month towards use and occupation charges to the present respondent by 07th day of each calendar month and the arrears were directed to be paid within two months from that date. The stay order was thereafter continued on date to date basis by different predecessor benches.

9. Vide order dated 08.12.2017, application (CM APPL. 18963/2017) of the petitioner/tenant for modification of order dated 28.02.2017 was allowed only to the extent of recording qua the adjustment of Rs. 8,50,000/- admittedly earlier paid to the respondent.

10. Vide order dated 26.09.2019 (by which date a number of applications were filed by both sides seeking vacation of the interim protection on account of non-payment of use and occupation charges and for continuation of the interim protection) the predecessor bench granted adjournment to the present petitioner and directed to ensure payment of use and occupation charges on or before 10th day of each calendar month