$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010081512026 + RC.REV. 65/2026 & CM APPL. 14370/2026 (Stay) SH. VIJAY PODDAR .....Petitioner Through: None. versus SH. RAJ KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bipin Kumar Jha, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR O R D E R % 30.09.2026 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, challenging the Order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RC ARC 617/2023 titled as “Sh. Raj Kumar v. Sh. Vijay Poddar”. 2. This Court takes note of the fact that, vide Order dated 10.03.2026, Notice was issued limited to the question of the period within which the Petitioner would vacate the Tenanted Premises. Thereafter, vide Order dated 27.03.2026, the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner was recorded to the effect that the Petitioner would vacate the Tenanted Premises on or before 31.07.2026. 3. It is noted that, in view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent had fairly stated that he would not press the claim towards payment of dues and occupation This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 10:54:51 charges. The matter was accordingly adjourned to enable the Petitioner to file an affidavit of undertaking regarding vacation of the Tenanted Premises, and was re-notified for 18.05.2026. 4. On 18.05.2026, this Court noted that the affidavit of undertaking in terms of the Order dated 27.03.2026 had not been filed and, accordingly, Court Notice was directed to be issued to the Petitioner. 5. This Court further notes that, while the Court Notice was served through WhatsApp, service through ordinary process and courier could not be effected. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that, pursuant to the execution proceedings, possession of the Tenanted Premises has already been taken over by the Respondent on or about 16.08.2026 and, consequently, nothing further survives for consideration in the present matter. 7. This Court takes note of the aforesaid development as also the chronology of the proceedings, including the submission made on behalf of the Petitioner regarding vacation of the Tenanted Premises and the subsequent handing over of possession to the Respondent. 8. In view of the fact that possession of the Tenanted Premises has already been handed over to the Respondent, no further purpose would be served in keeping the present Petition pending. 9. Accordingly, the present Petition, along with all pending Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/pa/jk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 10:54:51