Rakesh Kumar v. Sh Ajay Kumar & Ors

O R D E R %

24.08.2026

¶1Learned Counsel for the Appellants states that on instruction, he is making a statement that the Appellants do not intend to contest the Appeal. However, time of six months is sought for vacating the premises.

¶2Learned Counsel for the Respondents has opposed the grant of time to vacate the property on the ground that there are no occupation charges This is a digitally signed order. awarded to the Respondent. Despite the judgment being given in 2022, the Appellants are continuing to be in possession of the suit property. Submissions heard.

¶3Considering the circumstances as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, the Appeal is dismissed and four weeks' time is given to the Appellants to vacate the property. In case they fail to vacated the premises within four weeks, they shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. till the time they vacate the property. In case the property is not vacated even thereafter, it shall be liable for enhancement by 10% every year.

¶4Undertaking be filed by both the parties within one week before the learned Registrar.

¶5The Appeal along with pending Applications, is accordingly disposed of.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. AUGUST 24, 2026 N This is a digitally signed order.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010094682023 + RFA 225/2023 RAKESH KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate versus SH AJAY KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. U.M. Tripathi, Advocate for R-1 # CNR No. DLHC010094902023 + RFA 226/2023, CM APPL. 13344/2023, CM APPL. 13346/2023, CM APPL. 53258/2026 RAKESH KUMAR & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate versus SH. AJAY KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. U.M. Tripathi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA