In view of the settled provisions of law on this aspect, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the decree of possession in respect of the suit property in their favour against the respondent. The Trial Court has wrongly given its fi..

In view of the settled provisions of law on this aspect, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the decree of possession in respect of the suit property in their favour against the respondent. The Trial Court has wrongly given its finding despite of the settled law on this aspect. In fact, the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to the extent of prayer for grant of decree of possession ought to have been allowed. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC is accordingly allowed. Thus, a decree for possession is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, in respect of the suit property i.e., entire premises S-45, Panchshila Park, New Delhi-110017. The respondents shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the petitioner latest by 31st August, 2014. During this period, the respondents shall not create any third party interest in the suit property. The petitioner for this period would be entitled to recover the market rent when the inquiry under Order 20 CPC would be conducted. As regards damages/mesne profit for occupation, learned Trial Court will hold inquiry under Order 20 CPC and pass appropriate orders.

Though this Court has sympathy for the physically handicapped, yet it is of the view that State largesse cannot be monopolised/cornered by a few individuals. In the present case, the petitioner is treating the allotment of a PCO Booth in favour of..

Though this Court has sympathy for the physically handicapped, yet it is of the view that State largesse cannot be monopolised/cornered by a few individuals. In the present case, the petitioner is treating the allotment of a PCO Booth in favour of her physically handicapped late husband as a family asset which can be inherited by her and her family members. Consequently, present writ petition and application being bereft of merit are dismissed. However, keeping in view the intent and objective of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, respondents are directed to allocate the PCO Booth/Tea Stall to be vacated by the petitioner, in accordance with the aforesaid Act, within a period of two months.

Dr. Naresh Gupta and Dr. S.Ramji had handed over the following certificate:- “The patient, Amit Ahuja, a case of hemophilia presently admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital is now in a stable condition without factor VIIa treatment and is maintainin..

Dr. Naresh Gupta and Dr. S.Ramji had handed over the following certificate:- “The patient, Amit Ahuja, a case of hemophilia presently admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital is now in a stable condition without factor VIIa treatment and is maintaining satisfactory progress. If at a later date, the patient would need factor VIIa, the hospital would provide the same.”

The aforesaid certificate is taken on record and the undertaking given by the Lok Nayak Hospital is accepted by this Court and Lok Nayak Hospital is held bound by the same.