Delhi High Court
B.L. Khanna vs Arun Carpets on 1 November, 1986
Equivalent citations: 31(1987)DLT88
JUDGMENT Sunanda Bhandare, J.
(1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the procedure adopted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, in Execution Petition No. 4 of 1982. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that the Rent Controller in Execution Petition is recording evidence of the parties for deciding whether the premises in question are required for bona fide personal need. This according to the petitioner, could not be done in execution.
(2) The petitioner let out premises No. D-17, defense Colony, New Delhi to the respondent through their Minaging Partner Mrs. Kamini Sodhani by registered lease deed dated 27th September, 1972 for a period of two years commencing from 1st October, 1972 for residential purpose. Since the respondent did not vacate the premises, the petitioner filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1), (a), (e), (d), (e), (h), (j) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, '958 for eviction of the respondent. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the parties had arrived at a compromise and a compromise application was filed before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 4th January. 1978. The Additional Rent Controller Delhi on 6th January, 1978 disposed of the eviction petition in terms of the compromise. According to the compromise entered into between the parties the respondent was allowed to continue to occupy the premises for a further period of four years. However, further condition was stipulated that in case he failed to hand over the possession to the petitioner be would be liable to pay the mesne profit-damages at the rate of Rs. 6,000.00 per month till the petitioner got back the possession. The respondent failed to hand over the vacant possession and also did not pay the amount agreed by him towards the damages for the use and occupation of the premises even after the period agreed to by the petitioner had expired. The petitioner, therefore, filed execution petition in the Court of Shri B.B. Choudhary, Additional Rent Controller Delhi. Another suit for recovery of Rs. 8.000.00 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class Delhi for arrears of compensation and damages.
(3) During the course of the bearing of the case in this Court, it was felt that the whole dispute between the parties could be finally settled. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that if some reasonable time was granted to the respondent to vacate the premises, he will not contest the petition. Learned counsel stated that the respondent would give an undertaking to the Court that vacant and peaceful possession of the premises will be handed over on or before 31st December, 1988. As regard the arrears of rent, learned counsel stated that he will be in a position to pay at the rate of Rs. 5.000.00 per month instead of Rs. 6.000.00 as agreed to between the parties provided he is allowed Installments for the payment of the arrears. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the premises were needed by the petitioner, who is above 70 years old for his bona fide personal need. However, if the respondent was willing to give an undertaking to the Court he would not execute the decree till 31st December, 1988.
(4) The respondent has thus filed an undertaking in the form of an affidavit staling therein that she will hand over the vacant physical possession of the entire premises in question to the petitioner-decree-holder or his legal heirs namely Smt. Gargi Khanna, Major B L. Khanna and Shri Rajiv Khanna on or before 31st December, 1988 along with complete fixtures and fittings as per the list which was signed by the parties at the time of letting out the premises subject of course to normal wear and tear. She has further undertaken to deposit the arrears of damages for the use and occupation of the premises for the period 7th January, 1982 to 30th November, 1986 at the additional rate of Rs. 2.000.00 per month, that is all told Rs. 1.18,000.00 in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in Installments. The first Installment of Rs. 25.000.00 would be deposited on or before 15th December, 1986. The second Installment of Rs. 9.000.00 would be deposited on or before 15th January, 1987 and the balance amount of Rs. 84.000.00 would be deposited in 12 Installments of Rs. 7.000.00 per month payable from 15th of every month. However, if she failed to deposit the amount by 15th of every month, the order will become executable by the 30th of that month. The respondent has further undertaken to deposit damages for the use and occupation of the premises in future at the rate of Rs. 6.000.00 per month with effect from 1st December, 1986 till the premises are vacated. This deposit would also be made in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller Delhi in eviction petition No. 181/76 on or before 15th of every month. The respondent has further undertaken not to sub let, assign or otherwise part with possession or alienate the whole or any part of the premises to anyone during the aforesaid period not to make any additions or alterations or any structural changes in the suit premises. The respondent has undertaken to pay charges for water, electricity and power and carry out entire repairs at her own costs during the period of her stay.
(5) A separate affidavit has been filed by the husband of the respondent who is also the power of attorney holder that he will abide by the undertakings given by the respondent.
(6) A statement is also made by the petitioner in Court that in view of the undertakings given by the respondent and her husband he would not press for execution of the decree till 31.12.1988 unless the respondent goes back on the undertaking and does not deposit the damages as undertaken by her.
(7) The undertakings given by the respondent, her husband, Mr. Arun K, Sodhani and the petitioner are accepted. The affidavits of undertakings are taken on record. The respondent is directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the petitioner or his legal heirs mentioned in the affidavit on or before 31.12.1988 and make the payment of damages for use and occupation of the premises in dispute as undertaken in the affidavit. The objections filed in the execution petition No. 4 of 1982 by the respondent shall stand dismissed.
(8) The Additional Rent Controller Delhi, before whom the execution petition No. 4 of 1982 filed by the petitioner is pending is directed to adjourn the same sine die with liberty to the petitioner to revive the same in case the respondent fails to make the payment of damages as undertaken by her in the affidavit or if she fails to vacate the premises on or before 31st December, 1988. Shri Rajesh Kumar Sub Judge 1st Class Delhi is directed to adjourn sine die the suit for recovery pending in that Court between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner is directed to withdraw the suit as soon as the Installment towards arrears of damages are paid by the respondent.
(9) The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
(10) Copies of this order and the affidavits of undertakings be sent to the Additional Rent Controller dealing with execution petition No. 4 of 1982 and the Sub Judge 1st Class Delhi dealing with the suit.