VIRENDER RASTOGI Vs. BRIJ MOHAN JUNEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitions are directed against a common order dated 25.04.2009, dismissing two separate applications for leave to defend filed by the petitioner/tenant in respect of two different shops bearing private Nos. 3 and 2 situated on the ground floor of premises bearing No. D-14, Pandav Nagar, near Mother Dairy, Delhi. After dismissing the leave to defend applications of the petitioner/tenant on the ground that he had failed to raise any triable issue therein, an eviction order was passed in favour of the respondent/landlord in respect of both the shops, with a caveat that the same shall not be given effect to for a period of six months from the date of the impugned order.

(2.) When the present petitions were listed for admission on 24.09.2009, the Court passed the following orders :

(3.) After notice was issued to the respondent, counsel enters appearance and states that his client has agreed to the proposal of the petitioner that he may be permitted to retain shop No. 3, which is subject matter of eviction petition No. E-181/2008 and R.C.R. 90/2009, while entitling the respondent/landlord to seek eviction of shop No. 2, subject matter of eviction petition No. E-182/2008 and R.C.R. 91/2009. Counsel for the petitioner confirms the fact that the aforesaid settlement has been arrived at between the parties. He, however, states that the petitioner has instituted a suit for specific performance in respect of both the shops, registered as Suit No. 776/2009, which is pending before the court of Shri Gulshan Kumar, Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi. He submits that the present agreement between the parties is without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties in the aforesaid suit.