Delhi District Court
Arct No. 19/13 vs Smt. Harinder Kaur on 30 July, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. S. K. SARVARIA, DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH WEST) ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL:
DISTRICT COURTS ROHINI, DELHI.
ARCT No. 19/13
Sh. Akhtar Ali,
S/o Sh. Sajjad Ali,
R/o BK-1/117-C, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi - 110088. ..... Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Harinder Kaur,
Wife of Sh. Sujan Singh,
R/o BK-1/123-B,
Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi-110088. .....Respondent
Date of institution : 06.06.2013
Date of arguments : 26.07.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 30.07.2013
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-5-2013 passed by ld. Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller North District (in short RC) by which the objections filed by the appellant/tenant in the execution petition filed by the respondent/landlady under Order 21 R 58 CPC were dismissed and warrant of Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Harinder Kaur 2 possession as well as warrant of attachment were directed to be issued against the appellant/tenant in respect of premises No.BK-1/117-C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi - 110088 (in short tenancy premises). The arguments on behalf of the appellant are that though there was a compromise between the parties in the petition u/S 45 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short Act) filed by him but initially landlady herself did not comply with said compromise and did not give no objection certificate which was given by her subsequently after petition u/S 340 Cr.PC was filed by the appellant/tenant against the respondent/landlady before ld. RC. It is argued that in a petition u/S 45 of the Act compromise regarding vacation of tenanted premises cannot be done so, the respondent/landlady should file a separate eviction petition if she wants eviction of the appellant/tenant from the tenancy premises. It is also argued that there was an out of court settlement between the parties and the respondent/landlady has promised to give another flat in tenancy in Rohini, Delhi to the appellant/tenant in lieu of vacating the tenancy premises but she has not honoured her promise so appeal and the objections u/O 21 R 58 CPC should be allowed and the impugned order dated 21-5-13 passed by ld. RC should be set aside. Reliance is placed upon:-
1 Joginder Singh Bedi Vs. Bawa Darbara Singh & Ors.
39 (1989) Delhi Law Times 270 Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Harinder Kaur 3 2 Santosh Tuli Vs. Ram Nath Pasi & Ors.
54 (1994) Delhi Law Times 106 3 Surinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. S. Rajdev Singh & Ors.
152 (2008) Delhi Law Times 704 4 AVM (Retired) K.G. Mohan Chandra Vs. Arun Mohan Chandra & Ors.
145 (2007) Delhi Law Times 428 The arguments on behalf of the respondent/landlady are that on 10-6-11 the appellant/tenant has made statement in the petition u/S 45 of the Act filed by him voluntarily without any pressure whereby he has undertaken to vacate the tenancy premises within one year from 10-6-2011 and has promised to clear all the outstanding arrears of electricity against the bill paid by the respondent but he has not honoured the undertaking given by him on oath before ld. CCJ-cum-ARC (NW) on 10-6-2011 and after 9-6-2012 he has also stopped paying rent to the respondent/landlady which led the landlady to file execution petition against him and his objections were rightly dismissed by ld.
RC.
It is argued that a person giving undertaking or compromising before any Court or Tribunal must honour it. Reliance is placed upon Gajender Solanki Vs. Banso Devi, AIR 2006 Delhi 24 & Rakesh Rishi Vs. Smt. Chetan Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Harinder Kaur 4 Vats 157 (2009) DLT 339.
I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties & have gone through the record of the ld. RC, written arguments filed on behalf of appellant, the authorities produced on behalf of respondent/landlady, appellant/tenant and relevant provisions of law.
In Jogender Singh Bedi's Case (Supra) relied on behalf of the appellant/tenant it was held that Rule 3A of Order 22 CPC bars a suit for declaration for setting aside compromise decree. In the present case, there is no compromise decree involved. The parties have compromised before ld. ARC and appellant/tenant has given undertaking to vacate tenancy premises the question involved in honouring the undertaking given by the appellant/tenant before ld. ARC. Therefore, Jogender Singh Bedi's case (Supra) does not help the appellant/tenant as any suit for declaration by appellant/tenant challenging compromise before ld. ARC-Cum-CCJ or undertaking given by appellant/tenant to vacate tenancy premises, would be barred in view of Jogender Singh Bedi's Case (Supra).
In Santosh Tuli's Case (Supra) it was held that only lawful agreement for compromise will bind the parties. The part of agreement of compromise which is not lawful is not binding and enforceable.
Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Harinder Kaur 5 The ld. RC in the impugned order dated 21-5-03 was of the considered opinion that any legal settlement can be arrived at in any proceedings between the parties. The statements were duly recorded before the ld. ARC. He observed that the parties were bound by their respective statements. I do not find anything improper or unjustified in the impugned order. The parties may resolve the dispute out of court or by way of alternative machinery provided like Mediation, Lok Adalat, Conciliation and Arbitration by virtue of Section 89 CPC. By the statement, the parties may also come to term and settlement of their disputes by way of compromise before the Court or the Tribunal. A settlement between landlady and tenant with regard to vacation of tenancy premises in the petition u/S 45 of the Act pertaining to restoration of essential amenities cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, Santosh Tuli's Case (Supra) would not help the appellant/tenant.
In Surender Kaur's Case (Supra) also relied upon by appellant/tenant our Hon'ble High Court was dealing with a case where parties have compromised but the terms of the compromise were not complied with so, Hon'ble High Court found it not a fit case for passing judgment on admission. The facts of the present appeal and execution proceedings pending before ld. RC are entirely different so, Surender Case's (Supra) is also inapplicable in the Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Harinder Kaur 6 present case.
In K.G. Mohan Chandra's Case (Supra) the Hon'ble High Court has opined that in order to dispose of suit on the basis of compromise between the parties, there must be written agreement or compromise duly signed by the parties or their counsels before the court so that Court may pass decree on the basis of the said compromise. In the present case, the appellant/tenant on the basis of consent and compromise between the parties has given statement before ld. ARC-Cum-CCJ on 10-6-2011 that he would vacate the premises within a year and this statement was signed before ld. ARC-cum-CCJ, therefore, he is bound by the statement and K.G. Mohan Chandra's Case (Supra) also does not help the appellant/tenant.
In Gajender Solanki's Case (Supra) relied by ld. counsel for respondent/landlady the order leading to vacation of premises was passed by the Trial Court on the undertaking given by the revisionist that he will himself vacate the premises in his possession but he dishonoured the undertaking and his application under Order 21 R97 CPC resisting the execution proceedings filed by the opposite party was rejected by Trial Court and the order was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. Gajender Solanki's Case (Supra) was subsequently quoted with approval by our Hon'ble High Court in its subsequent Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Harinder Kaur 7 decision of Rakesh Rishi's Case (Supra) also relied upon by ld. counsel for landlady in which the tenant gave undertaking to vacate premises by giving a particular date but he failed to vacate it. The execution court took note of the fact of the compromise and after expiry of the period tenant was under obligation to handover the premises to landlady so it ordered issuance of Warrant of Possession which order was confirmed by our Hon'ble High Court in Rakesh Rishi's Case (Supra). The Gajender Solanki's Case (Supra) and Rakesh Rishi's Case (Supra) relied upon by ld. counsel for respondent/landlady clearly apply to the execution proceedings pending before ld. RC and the present appeal.
In the statement before ld. ARC-Cum-CCJ regarding compromise made by the appellant/tenant that he would vacate the tenancy premises within one year from 10-6-2011 he has nowhere stated that the landlady has agreed to give him possession of another flat in Rohini, therefore, the arguments on behalf of appellant/tenant that such a promise was made by landlady out of court, is liable to be rejected. More so, when on behalf of landlady this contention is strongly refuted.
The appellant/tenant in the present case has obtained the benefit of compromise between the parties before ld. ARC-Cum-CCJ in the proceedings Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Harinder Kaur 8 u/S 45 of the Act and has enjoyed the possession of the tenancy premises for one year from 10-6-11, therefore, he was bound by undertaking to vacate it on 10-6-12 but he is still continuing in possession of the tenancy premises even today in July, 2013. In the face of this fact the argument on behalf of tenant that initially landlady did not give N.O.C for obtaining electric connection but on his application u/S 340 CPC before ld. ARC-Cum-CCJ it was given pales in to insignificance. Therefore, this un-reasonal situation should be corrected by ld. RC by expediting the execution proceedings arising out of the undertaking dated 10-6-11 of appellant/tenant himself before ARC-Cum-CCJ. This view finds support from the Gajender Solanki's Case (Supra) and Rakesh Rishi's Case (Supra).
In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment in appeal be sent to the server (www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in). The Trial Court's Record be returned along with copy of this judgment in appeal. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 30th July 2013.
(S. K. SARVARIA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (N/W) ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL ROHINI COURTS, DELHI/30-07-2013*rk Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Harinder Kaur 9 ARCT No. 19/13 Sh. Akhtar Ali, Vs. Smt. Harinder Kaur, 30-7-2013 Present : Both parties in person.
Vide separate detailed order of even date, the present appeal is dismissed.
The trial ARC's record be returned along with copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
(S. K. SARVARIA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (N/W) ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL ROHINI COURTS, DELHI/30-07-2013*rk Akhtar Ali Vs. Smt. Harinder Kaur