KHURSHEED ALAM vs SMT. MITHLESH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 RC.REV. 248/2024 & CM APPL. 1113/2025 KHURSHEED ALAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Maroof Ahmad, Adv with Petitioner in person. versus SMT. MITHLESH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Dixit, Ms. Gauri Dixit, Advs. with Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. After some arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions from the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner needs additional time upto 31.01.2026 to vacate the tenanted premises. 2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on instructions from the Respondent, submits that the Respondent is agreeable to allow time up to 31.01.2026, subject to the Petitioner paying user and occupation charges in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month, till the vacation of the subject premises to the Respondent. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that this is acceptable to the Petitioner. 4. In view thereof, let an Undertaking by way of an Affidavit be filed by the Petitioner, within a period of one week undertaking that: (i) The Petitioner shall hand over the vacant physical possession