NOORUDDIN AHMED Vs. MOHD. ILYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. These appeals arise out of an order passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby RCR No, 133 of 2011 filed by the Respondent-tenant has been allowed and leave to defend granted to the tenant in connection with Eviction Suit No. 195 of 2010.

(2.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the orders under challenge. It is, in our opinion, unnecessary to recapitulate the factual matrix in which the controversy arises before us. We say so because after the matter was argued at length, learned Counsel for the parties agreed to an arrangement which in our opinion sufficiently meets the ends of justice. According to this arrangement the Respondent-tenant who is occupying suit shop measuring 12 x 6 feet in Khirki Tafazzal Husain near Jagat Cinema, Darya Ganj, Delhi, has agreed to vacate the said premises subject to this Court granting reasonable time to him to do so. It is noteworthy that the trial Court had while dismissing the application for grant of leave to defend decreed the suit filed by the Appellant-landlords on the ground that the said premises was required by Appellant No. 3 for his bonafide personal occupation. That order has been reversed by the High Court as already noticed above and leave; to defend granted to the tenant on the ground that triable issues arise for determination in the suit. In the circumstances, therefore, while setting aside the order passed by the High Court, that passed by the trial Court shall have to be restored with suitable directions regarding the period within which the Respondent shall vacate the premises in his occupation. We, accordingly, allow these appeals, set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore that passed by the trial Court. We, however, grant to the Respondent time to vacate the premises uptil 30.6.2014 subject to the following conditions: