W.P.(C)/112/2018 of SH. SUBHASH CHAD GOYAL Vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

$-32 & 42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C) 112/2018SH. SUBHASH CtlAND GOYALPetitionerThrough:MrHarpreetSingh,MrAruneshSharmaandMrSourabhGrover,Advocates.versusGOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.RespondentsTlirough:MrDeveshSingh,ASC(Civil),GNCTDwithMsMinalSehgal,Advocate.AND+W.P.(C) 148/2018 148/2018SH. SUBHASH CHAND GOYALPetitionerThrough:MrHarpreetSingh,MrAruneshSharmaandMrSourabhGrover,Advocates.

+W.P.(C) 148/2018 148/2018

versus

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

RespondentThrough:MrDeveshSingh,ASC(Civil),GNCTDwithMsMinalSehgal,Advocate.

CORAM:HON'BlvE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUORDER%08.01.2018

CM No.508/2018in W.P.(C) 112/2018CM No.612/2018in W.P.(C) 148/2018

1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.W.P.(0 112/2018W.P.(0 148/2018

2.The principal grievance of the petitioner in the present petitions is thatthe Lease Deed dated 07.12.201,6presented by the petitioner pertaining toone shop on the ground floor bearing private number 3 having an areameasuring 10.45 Sq. Mtr., which is part of the property bearing no.662/8having an area measuring"12.5 sq. yards built on the part of the plot no.2situated at main Patpargarij Road, near Shiv Puri, Bhola Building Illaqa*1-Shahdaia.'Delhi-l 10051 is riotbeing registeredwith the Sub-Registrar.

3.The principal reason for the Sub-Registrar not registering the abovem^entionedJ^ease Deed is the status quo order dated 22.02.2016 passed"bythis Court In Shk Harish Chandra Bola v. Smf. Meenakshi Bkola & Ors,:W.P,(C) 92/2016.In terms of the said order, this Court had directed thatstatus quo be maintained with regard to the possession and title of thefollowing thi'ee properties

(1)'Property bearing ho.11/221 nieasuruig 100 sq. j^ards., GeetaColony,belhi-n0031.- ' '",Colony,belhi-n0031.- ' '",

(ii) ' Ofiice'-SpaceiSfo;F-2 on IV Floor of K-Block, Plot No.3(BfahmcluitTower), Sector-18, Noid^, UP'measuring488.31'(BfahmcluitTower), Sector-18, Noid^, UP'measuring488.31'sq. ft. super area.''

(iii)Free-holdpropertybearingH.No.662/8,P'atparganjRoad,Delhimeasuring 100 sq. yds. (now remaining 60 sq. yds.).measuring 100 sq. yds. (now remaining 60 sq. yds.).

4.Mr Harpreet Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that the property being let out under the Lease Deed dated07.12.2016 is not part of the suit property in CS(OS) 92/2016. He further

states that the plaintiff therein (Shri Harish Chander Bhola) has also made astatement before the District Magistrate that he has no dispute with theepetitioner,

5.It does appear on plain reading of the order dated 22.02.2016 passedin CS(OS) 92/2016 that the description of the property being let out by theLease Deed dated 07.12.2016 is included in the description of the propertystated in the said order. It is for this reason that the Sub-Registrar has notregistered the Lease Deed dated 07.12.2016.

This Court is of the view that since the question involves of the view that since the question involves the view that since the question involves

6.This Court is of the view that since the question involves of the view that since the question involves the view that since the question involves aclarification that whether the property in question is covered in terms of thestatus quo dated 22.02.2016, it would be apposite for the petitioner to seeknecessary clarification from the Court concerned with that matter.

7.The petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to do so.

JANUARY 08,2018

VIBHUBAKHRU,J