Delhi High Court
Ms.Shabnam Shamsi vs Ms.Farzana Begum on 3 November, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M.(M) No. 296/2014 & C.M.Nos.5494/2014 (Exemption),
5495/2014 (Stay)
% 03rd November, 2014
MS.SHABNAM SHAMSI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate.
versus
MS.FARZANA BEGUM ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Zafar Siddiqui, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 20.2.2013 by which the trial court struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant.
2. The subject suit is a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondent/landlady against the petitioner/tenant. In the suit for possession and mesne profits, an interim order for payment on account of rent @ Rs.2000/- per month from November, 2009 was passed on 05.4.2010. This order remained uncomplied with and the case of the petitioner/defendant in reply to an application filed for striking off the defence, and which has been CM(M) No.296/2014 Page 1 of 3 allowed by the impugned order, was that the petitioner offered rent orally but the same was refused by the respondent. The trial court has found this stand not believable because if the respondent/plaintiff/landlady had refused rent, the petitioner/tenant would have immediately approached the court for deposit of the amount in court, and which was not done.
3. The order with regard to deposit of rent is 05.4.2010, and counsel for the petitioner informs that now the petitioner about two months back had deposited the entire arrears of rent. However, it is clear that the petitioner has willfully and contumaciously failed to comply with the order dated 05.4.2010 and compliance about two months back in the year 2014 cannot be a compliance in terms of an order passed more than four years back on 05.4.2010. It is obvious that the petitioner/tenant is unnecessarily harassing the respondent/landlady.
4. In view of the above, no grounds are made out for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the petitioner has willfully and contumaciously failed to comply with the order of deposit of rent @ 2000/- per month from November, 2009.
5. I may note that the suit property is a small flat situated in Jamia Nagar, Okhla Village, New Delhi, and the case of the respondent/landlady CM(M) No.296/2014 Page 2 of 3 was that rent was fixed @ Rs.5000/- per month, but the petitioner/tenant claimed rent only of Rs.2000/- per month, and therefore the order was passed for deposit of rent only @ Rs.2000/- per month. Prima facie the stand of the petitioner/tenant of rent only of Rs.2000/- per month is doubtful because I would venture to state that even a small jhuggi is not available in Delhi for Rs.2000/- per month.
6. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 03, 2014 KA CM(M) No.296/2014 Page 3 of 3