COGENT VENTURES (INDIA) LTD Vs. RAJ KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Ashok Chhabra, learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff, states that he has instructions not to oppose the application for condonation of delay and argue on the merits of the case instead.

(2.) APPLICATION is allowed.

(3.) THE facts, in brief, are that a Notice dated 17.8.2006 had been issued on behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff, calling upon the Appellant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the premises within fifteen days thereof. The Notice further demanded damages in the event of the overstay of the Appellant at the market rate which, according to the Respondent, was Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. Since the Appellant failed to handover vacant possession of the demised premises, a Suit for recovery of possession, recovery of Rs. 14,00,000/- towards damages for use and occupation and for permanent and mandatory injunction came to be filed.