Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Anita Panikar vs S. K. Sharma on 15 February, 2021

Author: V. Kameswar Rao

Bench: V. Kameswar Rao

                              $~16
                              *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                              +       RFA 83/2021,CM APPLs. 5786-87/2021
                                      ANITA PANIKAR                                      ..... Appellant
                                                         Through:     Mr.Jaspreet Singh, Adv.

                                                         versus

                                      S. K. SHARMA                                    ..... Respondent
                                                         Through:     Mr.Anunaya Mehta, Adv.

                                      CORAM:
                                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
                                              ORDER

% 15.02.2021 This matter is being heard through video-conferencing.

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

1. The challenge in this appeal is to an impugned Judgement Decree dated January 08, 2021 passed by the Additional District Judge 04, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in CS DJ/761/2019 whereby the suit filed by the respondent herein has been decreed against the appellant under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, to the extent of possession of the suit property bearing No.B-2/119 Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi-110029.

2. The only submission made by Mr.Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the Trial Court could not have decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on a finding that the amount of Rs.1 lac given by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:17.02.2021 16:03:18 appellant to the respondent as security has been adjusted against the rent for the months of April and May, 2019. According to Mr.Jaspreet, no evidence has been placed on record by the respondent with regard to the adjustment of the security amount.

3. In the absence of any evidence, there cannot be any unconditional / unequivocal admission on the part of the appellant for which, the suit couldhave been decreed.Mr.Jaspreet Singh states that if the respondent refunds the amount of Rs.1 lac to the appellant, the appellant shall vacate the premises.

4. On this only submission made by Mr.Jaspreet Singh, Mr.Anunaya Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that the Trial Court while decreeing the suit has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Uberoisons Machines Ltd. v.Central Colour Ltd. Manu/DE/0510/2003 to hold that even if the respondent herein has not refunded / adjusted the security amount against the rent payable for two months, still the appellant cannot continue to occupy the premises after the lease period has expired. The claim of the refund of the security amount is a separate claim and the appellant necessarily has to seek such amount in accordance with law.

5. Mr.Mehta states that without prejudice to his rights and contentions, the respondent is ready to deposit the amount of Rs.1 lac before this Court and on such deposit, the appellant must vacate the premises and the deposit of the amount of Rs.1 lac be made subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending before the trial court with respect to rent, post August 2019.

6. On the last submission of Mr.Mehta, Mr.Jaspreet Singh states that if Rs.1 Lac is deposited by the respondent, the appellant shall vacate the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:17.02.2021 16:03:18 premises within a period of three weeks.

7. If that be so, the respondent is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.1 lac with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of ten days from today. The appellant shall vacate the premises on or before March 08, 2021.

8. The appellant shall also file an undertaking in that regard before this Court within ten days.

9. I dispose of this appeal making it clear that the deposit of the amount of Rs.1 Lac by the respondent in this Court shall be subject to the final outcome of the suitbeing CS DJ/761/2019 wherein the impugned order has been passed. On such deposit the amount shall be kept in interest bearing FDR.

10. The appeal is disposed of.

In view of the order passed above, the application is rendered infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J FEBRUARY 15, 2021/bh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH KUMAR YADAV Signing Date:17.02.2021 16:03:18