Mr. Vikrant Singh vs Mrs. Neelam Tewari
2008 Latest Caselaw 879 Del

              HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                           FAO OF 191/2008

                                          Reserved on : 6th June, 2008

                                     Date of Decision: June 11th, 2008

# Mr. Vikrant Singh                       ..... Appellant/Defendant
!                             Through     Mr. Ruchir Batra, Advocate

                                 Versus

$ Mrs. Neelam Tewari                      ..... Respondent/Plaintiff

                              Through     None


CORAM:

* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN


     1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?                                         No
     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in                   No
        the digest?

                            JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J :

1. The Appellant/Defendant has filed the present appeal seeking

setting aside of the order dated 23rd May, 2008 in Suit No. 302/2008,

whereby the Additional District Judge, Delhi has directed the

Appellant/Defendant to deposit the entire arrears of rent from 1st April,

2007 to May 2008 by 2nd June, 2008, failing which his defence would

be struck off.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant states that the

Respondent/Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of possession,

damages and mesne profits against the Appellant/Defendant and

along with the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC

had also been filed. The Appellant/Defendant alleges that after filing

the said suit, the Respondent/Plaintiff had intentionally got the

electricity and water supply in the suit premises disconnected and,

therefore, there was no reason for the Appellant/Defendant to pay

any rent or charges for use and occupation of the suit premises. He

further states that during the course of argument under Order 39 Rule

10 CPC the Respondent/Plaintiff had assured the Trial Court that she

would get the electricity and water connection restored in the suit

premises and it was only on this assurance that the Court had

directed the Appellant/Defendant to deposit the admitted amount of

rent @ Rs. 13,500/- per month w.e.f. 1st April, 2007. He further

states that in the month of April, 2008 the Respondent/Plaintiff had

filed an application under section 151 CPC for striking off the defence

of the Appellant/Defendant as it had not deposited the arrears of rent

in accordance with the order dated 10th January, 2008. It was during

these proceedings that the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2008 was

passed by the trial court directing the Appellant/Defendant to deposit

entire arrears of rent within one week.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant further submits

that as the Respondent/Plaintiff had already filed an Appeal being

FAO No. 50/2008 in this Court against the order dated 10th January,

2008, the Respondent/Plaintiff was estopped from asking the

Appellant/Defendant to comply with the said order.

4. I find that the Appellant's arguments are misconceived on facts

and untenable in law. The order dated 10th January, 2008 passed by

the trial court does not in any way stipulate that the electricity and

water supply of the suit premises have to be restored by the

Respondent/Plaintiff, prior to the Appellant/Defendant depositing the

admitted arrears of rent. In case the Appellant/Defendant had a

grievance with the non recording of such a concession in the order

dated 10th January, 2008, it should have filed either an application for

recalling of the said order or an appeal. However, having initiated no

proceedings against the order dated 10th January, 2008, the said

order has attained finality and the Appellant/Defendant cannot go

behind the said order. In any event, Court proceedings are a matter

of record and no party can allege an oral understanding or oral

concession in Court which is not incorporated in the Court order.

5. The second argument of the Appellant/Defendant that the

Respondent/Plaintiff was estopped from enforcing or relying upon the

order dated 10th January, 2008 is concerned, it is equally untenable.

The Respondent/Plaintiff has impugned the order dated 10th January,

2008 to the extent that it has directed the Appellant/Defendant to

deposit only the admitted amount of rent.

6. Consequently, I am of the view that the impugned order dated

23rd May, 2008 calls for no interference as the trial court has already

given one additional opportunity to the Appellant/Defendant to comply

with the order dated 10th January, 2008 - which order in fact had not

been challenged by the Appellant/Defendant.

7. In view of the above, I dismiss the present appeal with cost of

Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to Delhi High Court Legal Services

Committee, New Delhi. Registry of this Court is directed to place a

copy of this order immediately on the file of Suit No. 302/2008 titled

as "Smt. Neelam Tewari Vs. Shri Vikrant Singh" pending in the court

of Shri Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi for

necessary information and action.

Manmohan (Vacation Judge)

June 11th, 2008 rn