Delhi High Court - Orders
Gurinder Mohan Marwah vs Santosh Malik & Anr on 12 October, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:13.10.2021
14:35:03
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. 5/2020
GURINDER MOHAN MARWAH ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
versus
SANTOSH MALIK & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 12.10.2021
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16th October, 2019 passed by the ld. Civil Judge, Delhi (West)-2 (hereinafter "Trial Court") in Misc. No. 188/19 titled Santosh Malik & Anr. v. Gurinder Mohan Marwah. By the impugned order, the application filed on behalf of the Defendant-Petitioner herein for refund of security deposit of Rs.21,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum was rejected by the Trial Court.
3. In this petition, process fee was filed and notice was issued to the Respondents on 15th January, 2020. Initially, report in respect of service of Respondents was awaited, but thereafter, notice to Respondent No.2 stood served.
4. None appears for the Petitioner as well as the Respondents today. Even on the last date, none appeared for the Petitioner, or for the Respondents.
5. The Plaintiffs-Respondents herein had filed a suit being CS SCJ C.R.P. 5/2020 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:13.10.2021 14:35:03 No.462/2017 titled Smt. Santosh Malik and Anr. v. Gurinder Mohan Marwah for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and permanent injunction on the basis of Rent Agreement dated 7th April, 2015 wherein a refundable security deposit of Rs.21,000/- was admitted by the Plaintiff. The said suit was amicably settled on account of a compromise entered between the parties on 22nd November, 2018. In accordance with the settlement, the Petitioner herein, who is the tenant, had handed over the keys of the property which is right-side portion of House No.27-A, 2nd Floor, Gali No.4, Ramgarh Colony, Opp. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 (hereinafter "suit property") and the same is clear from the order dated 22nd November, 2018 in CS SCJ No.462/2017. The Defendant-Petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to the Plaintiff/Respondents towards full and final settlement of the dispute.
6. However, even when the arrears of rent were negotiated in the settlement, no issue was raised by the Defendant-Petitioner in respect of the refundable security deposit of Rs.21,000/- or the interest thereon. In view thereof, the Trial Court has dismissed the said application. The operative portion of the Trial Court's order dated 16th October, 2019 is set out below:
"5. Arguments were heard and record has been perused. Perusal of the record reveals that the suit of the plaintiff/landlord was partly decreed U/O 12 R.6 CPC with regard to relief of possession and permanent injunction vide order dt.13/11/2017 and the appeal by the defendant against the said order was dismissed vide order dt. 15/10/2018 of the Ld. ADJ, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Perusal of order dt.22/11/2018 reveals that the defendant had given a statement to the effect that he has handed over the key of the suit property to the plaintiff no.2 C.R.P. 5/2020 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:13.10.2021 14:35:03 and he is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- as arrears of rent and that the suit may be disposed off as settled. Separate statement of counsel for plaintiff was also recorded wherein he stated that plaintiffs are willing to fully and finally settle the matter on the payment of Rs. 1,60,000/-. Further perusal of the order dt.26/02/2019 reveals that the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff U/S 151 CPC for clearing of outstanding dues and to get the property repaired was withdrawn by the counsel for the plaintiff and it was noticed that nothing remains in the suit to be adjudicated qua the defendant. Therefore, the suit was disposed off as settled.
6. The present application has been filed by the defendant/applicant for release of Rs.21,000/- which was admittedly paid by the defendant/tenant to the plaintiff/landlord as also recorded in Clause-17 of the rent agreement dt.07/04/2015. It is submitted by the applicant that since the plaintiff has failed to pay the admitted security deposit to the defendant and as multiplicity of litigations can be curtailed, therefore, the plaintiff should be directed to pay security deposit alongwith interest.
7. Perusal of the order dt.22/11/2018 and 26/02/2019 reveals that the security deposit was not a part of the settlement that was arrived between the parties. In fact there is no mention of the security deposit of Rs.21,000/- and even perusal of the statement of the defendant/applicant recorded on 22/11/2018 shows that defendant has stated that he is ready to pay Rs.1 ,60,000/- as arrears of rent and that the suit may be disposed off as settled. It is not the case of the defendant that any counter-claim was filed by the defendant against the plaintiff for recovery of his security deposit of Rs.21,000/-. It is also not the case of the defendant/applicant that the defendant was not present or represented when the C.R.P. 5/2020 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:13.10.2021 14:35:03 statements were recorded on 22/11/2018 and 26/02/2019 and it has been recorded in the order dt.22/11/2018 that plaintiffs are willing to fully and finally settle the matter on payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- by the defendant. If the defendant/applicant had any expectation for return of the security deposit of Rs.21,000/-, the defendant should have taken steps at the appropriate stage for either filing a counter- claim against the plaintiff or making the return of security deposit by the plaintiff, a part of the settlement between the parties. However, the applicant/defendant has admittedly not done so. Be that as it may, a party who has voluntarily arrived at a settlement in the court cannot be allowed to re- agitate the same issue about which it had remained silent at the appropriate time when the settlement took place. Therefore, the applicant/defendant is estopped from raising the issue of security deposit after the final disposal of the suit especially when no such issue was ever raised by the defendant when the matter was being settled between the parties."
7. Considering the nature of this matter as also the fact that the disputes between the parties arising out of Rent Agreement dated 7th April, 2015 have been settled, and the keys of the suit property have already been handed over by the Petitioner to the Respondents, the application seeking refund of security deposit of Rs.21,000/- has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court.
8. The present petition is devoid of any merits and is, accordingly, dismissed along with any pending applications.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2021 dj/ad C.R.P. 5/2020 Page 4 of 4