Delhi District Court
Mrs. Veena Chugh vs Mr. Budh Prakash Sharma on 3 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
SOUTH-II, SAKET, NEW DELHI
EXECUTION NO. 324/11
MRS. VEENA CHUGH ...PLAINTIFF/ DH
VERSUS
MR. BUDH PRAKASH SHARMA ...DEFENDANT/JD
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off the application wherein objections under section 47 read with order 21 rule 97 and 100 read with section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of Smt. Saroj Sharma, W/o Shri Budh Prakash.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
I. Vide order dated 03.04.2010 my Ld. Predecessor Court has disposed off the suit for possession/ ejectment filed by the plaintiff as the matter has been compromised between the plaintiff and the defendant. Separate statement of both the parties were recorded on 03.04.2010. As per the compromise application (Exhibit P-1) defendant had agreed to vacate the premises on or before 31.03.2011 and had also agreed to pay the arrears of rent/ damages w.e.f. 01.11.2009 to 31.03.2010 @ 8,400 per month totalling Rs. 42,000/- to the plaintiff in the court. As per the agreement the plaintiff would return the security deposit of Rs. 18,000/- in cash to the defendant at the time of Ex. No. 324/11 1 vacation of the tenanted premises. On 03.04.2010 a chqeue no. 353244 dated 03.04.2010 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi for an amount of Rs. 34,000/- and cash of Rs. 8,000/- have been given by the defendant to the plaintiff in the court and matter was disposed off by my Ld. Predecessor Court in terms of the compromise application (Exhibit P-1).
II. On 25.04.2011 execution petition was filed on behalf of Smt. Veena Chugh (landlady) as the defendant failed to hand over the peaceful vacant possession to her. Warrant of possession in respect of suit property were issued against JD but same could not be executed as the wife of JD requested for some time and made a statement along with an undertaking on the stamp paper of Rs. 50/- wherein she has mentioned that she has read the order of Hon'ble Court and her husband Shri Budh Prakash has gone out of Delhi and further undertakes to vacate the premises by 15.05.2011.
III.On 24.05.2011 she filed the present application/ objections. It is mentioned in the application that applicant on inquiry from this court came to know about the warrant of possession issued from this court against Shri Budh Prakash who is unfortunately the husband of the applicant and is not keeping good terms with her. It is further submitted that the rent was always paid by her only and not by her husband. It is further submitted that the decree passed against Shri Budh Prakash (her husband) is not binding on her as the husband is not living with her and occasionally visits the house. It is further submitted that the premises were taken on rent by her from the landlady Smt. Veena Chugh on an initially rent of Rs. 6,000/- per month Ex. No. 324/11 2 which was increased to Rs. 8,400/- and it was requested to set aside decree passed by my Predecessor Court.
IV. Reply to the objection has been filed by the plaintiff submitting that the objections filed by Smt. Saroj Sharma are not maintainable and very purpose of filing these objections is to frustrate the compromise decree passed by the Court. It is submitted that JD, Shri Budh Prakash who was the husband of the objector was the tenant in respect of premises and a lease agreement was executed with the JD and not with the objector. It is further submitted that there was no dispute between the objector and the JD. It is further submitted that even on 12.05.2011 the objector had given an undertaking on a stamp paper that the premises will be vacated by 15.05.2011 and on that day she has not stated that the husband is not the tenant and she is the tenant rather she has stated that her husband has gone out of Delhi and shall be returning on 15.05.2011. It is submitted that plea of the objector that she is not having cordial relation with her husband and her husband is not the tenant is without any basis. It is further submitted that a legal notice dated 03.12.2009 for termination of tenancy was received by the objector as the AD Card was signed by the objector which shows that the objector was sure that JD (her husband) is a tenant.
V. On 03.04.2010 statements were recorded in the Court. When statements were recorded before this court, the objector was also present and JD had also given a cheque of Rs. 34,000/- to the plaintiff/ landlady. It is submitted that the rate of rent of Rs. 7,000/- and the rate of Rs. 8,400/- was settled in Ex. No. 324/11 3 the compromise affected on 03.04.2010 and if the objector was not aware of the compromise then how the cheque of Rs. 8,400/- was given by her, it shows that the objector was fully aware of entire process and also that JD was the tenant.
3. Heard. Considered. Trial court record was summoned. TCR perused wherein the Predecessor Court on 20.03.2010 has recorded that:
"Without issuance of notice, Sh. Dhananjay Puri, Advocate, has put in his appearance on behalf of the defendants. It is stated that both the parties are agreeable to a compromise in this case. Let appropriate steps be taken. Adjourned to 03.04.2010."
4. On 03.04.2010 statement of both the parties were recorded as compromise has been affected between the parties and Ld. Predecessor Court has recorded that:
"In view of the statement of the parties in the Court and compromise application Ex. P1, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms thereof. Ex. P1 shall be form part of the decree. Parties shall be bound by the terms of Ex. P1 and the statement made in the court. Decree sheet be prepared. The file be consigned to Record Room."
5. An undertaking on the stamp paper given by the objector has also been placed on record by the bailiff wherein she undertakes to vacate the suit premises by Ex. No. 324/11 4 15.05.2011. The rent agreement regarding the suit property has also been placed on record by the plaintiff in the trial court record along with the legal notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant/ tenant along with postal receipts and AD Card. AD card has been signed by the objector herself.
6. On the basis of documents on record and from the submissions on behalf of both the counsels it appears that objector was having knowledge of the compromise Exhibit P-1. A Notice for vacation of tenanted premises has also been received by the objector and on 25.04.2011 she has also made submission before the bailiff and given an undertaking that she will vacate the premises by 15.05.2011. She has offered a cheque of Rs. 8,400/- to the landlady and this figure of Rs. 8,400/- have arisen only in the compromise application made by her husband and the landlady. Upon facts and circumstances, the objections filed by objector are hereby rejected.
Announced in open court.
(NEELAM SINGH) ADJ-02, SOUTH, SAKET, NEW DELHI 03.08.2011 Ex. No. 324/11 5 Veena Chugh Vs. Budh Prakash Sharma Ex. No. 324/11 03.08.2011 Present: Counsel for the DH Proxy counsel for JD Vide my separate order, objections filed by objector is hereby rejected. Put up for further proceedings for 17.08.2011.
(NEELAM SINGH) ADJ-02, SOUTH, SAKET, NEW DELHI 03.08.2011 Ex. No. 324/11 6