VIKAS ALIAS RAJU AND ANR Vs. HARKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts beyond the pale of controversy are as under:

(2.) Ms. Divya Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the tender could not made on the first date of hearing and on the adjourned date thereafter because the petitioner-tenant was not possessed of funds adequate enough to enable him to pay up. On the particular date fixed thereafter, it is argued, the tender could not be made as the Presiding Officer did not hold the Court, being busy in conducting an auction proceeding. (This averment is a reiteration of the presentation made at the time of motion hearing.).

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the ratio of law in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial Corproation , AIR 2002 SC 2004 and a Division Bench Judgment dated 7.1.2010 in Civil Revision No. 3577 of 2006 (Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar) cannot be applied mechanically and this Court ought to take notice of the circumstances under which the tender could not be made.