Delhi High Court - Orders
Manisha vs Parminder Kaur Khurana & Anr on 4 October, 2023
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~76
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ EX.F.A. 38/2023 & CM APPL. 50420/2023
MANISHA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray and Mr.
Abhik Kumar, Advocates
versus
PARMINDER KAUR KHURANA & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankur Sood and Ms. Romila
Mandal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 04.10.2023
1. The present appeal impugns the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the ADJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi ('Trial Court') in Ex. No. 161/2022 titled as "Parminder Kaur Khurana v. Rishi Rathi" ('execution petition') whereby, the Executing Court dismissed the objections filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 101 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC').
1.1. The execution petition had been filed by the Respondent No. 1 against Respondent No. 2 after obtaining a judgment and decree dated 23.12.2021 in CS No. 381/2020 with respect to suit property i.e., Flat No. 1230, Pocket -1, Sector-D, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The judgement was passed holding that a relationship of landlord-tenant exists between Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which stands validly terminated. The said judgment of the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court in RFA 167/2022 vide judgement dated 29.04.2022 in the appeal filed by Respondent No. 2.
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 06/10/2023 at 01:54:09 1.2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner claiming herself to be a tenant in the suit p roperty, relying upon an agreement dated 09.08.2019 executed by Respondent No. 2 in her favour . 1.3. The Executing Court has dismissed the objections filed by the Petitioner herein holding that she is a sub-tenant who has no independent right and her claim stands adjudicated and rejected in the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2021.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner had sought an adjournment on last date of hearing i.e., on 27.09.2023 to take instructions from the Petitioner to the effect that if she is willing to deposit the entire rental amount payable by her under the purported lease agreement dated 16.02.2010. The Petitioner had sought to set up a plea of tenancy under the deceased mother of Respondent No. 1 i.e., late Mrs. Rajender Kaur vide lease deed dated 16.02.2010.
2.1. On the said date, the counsel for the Petitioner had stated that rent has been paid to the deceased mother of Respondent No. 1 under the said lease agreement reserved at Rs. 14,000 per month through banking channels. The Petitioner had been directed to place on record, today, the proof of payments made to late Mrs. Rajender Kaur.
3. Today, the counsel for the Petitioner has appeared and states that he has no proof of payment of any rent by cheque/banking channels to late Mrs. Rajender Kaur.
3.1. He alleges that payment of rent, under the lease deed dated 16.02.2010, were made in cash to late Mrs. Rajender Kaur and fairly admits that no such stand of payment by cash has been raised either in this petition or in the objections filed before the Trial Court. He states that no receipts 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 06/10/2023 at 01:54:09 were issued by late Mrs. Rajender Kaur for the said payments of rent in cash.
4. In the opinion of this Court, ex facie, it appears that a false statement is being made before the Court. The Petitioner has changed her stance without impunity. It is therefore, deemed appropriate to examine the Petitioner under Order X CPC with respect to the veracity of her statements.
5. The Petitioner has further relied upon a purported lease agreement dated 09.09.2019 executed between Ms. Manisha and Respondent No. 2 i.e., Mr. Rishi Raj Rathi. The Petitioner fairly states that all payments by cheque mentioned in the said agreement, if at all, were made by the Petitioner to Mr. Rishi Raj Rathi. He admits that no payments under the said agreement was made to late Mrs. Rajender Kaur.
5.1. The learned counsel argues that the Petitioner believes that Respondent No. 2 i.e., Mr. Rishi Raj Rathi is the attorney of late Mrs. Rajender Kaur. Under this belief the agreement was signed and payments made.
5.2. This submission of the Petitioner is not borne out from the contents of the purported lease agreement dated 09.09.2019. The said lease has been signed by Respondent No. 2 in his personal capacity. 5.3. Even otherwise, it is a matter of fact that Mrs. Rajender Kaur passed away in the year 2013. Therefore, on this reason alone Respondent No. 2, Mr. Rishi Raj Rathi could not have been acting as the attorney of the deceased while executing the lease agreement dated 09.09.2019. 5.4. In the opinion of the Court, the lease agreement dated 09.09.2019 on which the Petitioner relies does not give her any independent right to continue in possession of the suit property. The Petitioner is claiming 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 06/10/2023 at 01:54:09 through Respondent No. 2 by relying on the lease agreement dated 09.09.2019 and the Executing Court has therefore rightly opined that the Petitioner's objections are mischievous.
6. The Petitioner admittedly has no proof of payment of rent to late Mrs. Rajender Kaur between 2010-2013. After 2013 until 2023 the Petitioner has admittedly not paid any rent to Respondent No. 1. It is a matter of record that Respondent No. 2 has not tendered rent for the suit property either since 2008. The present proceedings are therefore an abuse of process to deny the Respondent No. 1 the fruits of her decree.
7. This Court therefore deems it appropriate to examine the Petitioner under Order X CPC and proposes to fix the matter for post lunch to record her statement. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he is in a difficulty post lunch and seeks an adjournment.
8. This Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner has made false claims before this Court which amounts to an offence under Section 209 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, show cause notice is hereby issued to her as to why the complaint be not made against her under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC') for making a false claim under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC').
9. The Petitioner is directed to remain present in person on the next date of hearing for recording of her statement under Order X CPC.
10. At request, adjourned to 30.10.2023 in supplementary list.
11. It is made clear that there is no stay of the execution proceedings or the impugned order dated 23.08.2023. The Respondent No. 1 is at liberty to execute the warrants of attachment.
12. List on 30.10.2023 in supplementary list.
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 06/10/2023 at 01:54:10
13. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 04, 2023/msh/asb Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 06/10/2023 at 01:54:10