RAJENDER KUMAR GOEL Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 6390/2008 (For Exemption)Heard. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. RFA No. 176/2008 this appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Delhi whereby Suit No. 173/2007 for possession of premises No. 19/5 Shakti Nagar, Delhi has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

(2.) WHEN the appeal appeared before us on 8th may, 2008 learned counsel for the appellant after arguing the matter at some length submitted that the appellant was ready to vacate the premises in his occupation provided he is given 1' years' time to do so. Learned counsel for the respondent was not, however, agreeable to the grant of only six months' time to the appellant that too upon payment of the arrears of compensation for use and occupation as also future payments on that account. Since, we saw an element of a settlement in the appeal, we directed the parties to remain present in persons today. The appellant has not, however, appeared despite that direction. Mr. Arya, counsel appearing for him submits that the appellant is indisposed and is, therefore, unable to appear in person. He, however, has made a statement which we have separately recorded, in which, Mr. Arya has on the instructions of the appellant expressed his readiness to vacate the premises in his occupation by the 31st may, 2009. Mr. Arya submits that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court could be upheld and the appellant may be given time till 31st May, 2009 to vacate the premises.

(3.) THE respondent, who is also present in person, has also made a statement separately recorded by us, in which, he has agreed to the grant of one year's time provided the appellant pays compensation of Rs. 4,500/- per month for the period commencing from 1st May, 2008 till 31st May, 2009 which payment would remain subject to any enhancement that the Trial Court may grant in the proceedings pending before it. The respondent also insists on the appellant filing an undertaking in this court to the effect that he shall vacate the premises on his own on or before 31st May, 2009 without putting to the respondent trouble in executing the decree.