Delhi High Court
Mrs. Meera Dhingra vs Mr. Deepak Kapoor & Ors. on 8 April, 2009
Author: Manmohan Singh
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ I.A. Nos. 7288/2007, 13461/2007 587/2008 &
14830/2008 (u/S 151 CPC) in CS(OS) 1176/2007
% Judgment reserved on : 25th March, 2009
Judgment pronounced on : 8th April, 2009
MRS. MEERA DHINGRA ..... Plaintiff
Through : Ms. Ginny Jetley Rautray, Adv.
Versus
MR. DEEPAK KAPOOR & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. S.K. Chaudhary & Mr. Sumeet
Batra, Advs. for D-1
Mr. S.N. Choudhari, Adv. for D-2
Mr. Manoj Sharma, Adv. for D 3-4
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. By this order I shall dispose of 4 applications being (a)
I.A.No.7288/07 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC,
(b) I.A.No.13461/07 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the ex
parte order, (c) I.A.No.587/08 under Section 151 CPC and (d)
I.A.No.14830/08 under Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff.
I.A.No.s.7288/07 & I.A.No.13461/07
2. The application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 has been filed
by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants from selling, disposing or
alienating in any manner whatsoever the property situated at A-53,
Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. An ex parte ad interim order in
this application was passed on 12 th July 2007 directing the parties to
maintain the status quo of title and possession of the above mentioned
property.
3. Another application being I.A.No.13461/07 under Order 39
Rule 4 CPC has been filed by the defendant for vacation of the ex parte
ad interim order, inter alia, on various pleas that the plaintiff has made
false and misleading statements in relation to material particulars in the
suit as well as concealed various material facts, the details of which are
given in Paras 2 and 3 of the said application. Therefore, the interim
application is a gross abuse of the process of law.
4. However, learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 states
that defendants have no intention to sell, dispose or alienate the
property situate at A-53, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi during
the pendency of the suit. It is admitted by defendant No.1 that the said
property is let out to Dr. Stephen Dreyer as per lease deed dated 21 st
April, 2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.1 lakh.
5. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for
defendants No.1 and 2, it is directed that without prejudice to the rights
and contentions, the parties may raise their respective pleas at the
appropriate time. The ex parte ad interim injunction passed by this
court on 12th July, 2007 shall continue till the pendency of the suit. Both
the applications are disposed of accordingly.
I.A.Nos. 587/08 & 14830/08
6. These two applications have been filed by the plaintiff
praying for deposit of rent by the tenant Dr.Stephen Dreyer for the suit
property No.A-53, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in this court
in the form of Fixed Deposit till the final disposal of the suit.
7. It is stated in the application that the rent for the suit property
has become due in December, 2007 from the tenant Dr. Stephen Dryer.
The plaintiff vide letter dated 13 th July, 2007 had informed the tenant
about the pendency of the present proceedings coupled with the
reminder dated 26th November, 2007 requesting him not to release the
rent in the name of defendant No.1 as it will be prejudicial to the
interest of the estate of the deceased in case any one party to the suit
property is allowed to appropriate the rent of the said property.
8. In the other application being I.A.No.14830/08, it is stated
that vide order dated 20th May, 2008 this court has directed the tenant
Dr. Stephen Dryer to deposit the bi-annual rent payable in the month of
June, 2008 in respect of the suit property with the Registrar of this court
on or before 4th July, 2008. The contention of the plaintiff is that the
rent of the suit property has become due in December, 2008 from the
said tenant. In consonance with the said order, the tenant Dr. Stephen
Dryer has deposited a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs towards the rental for six
months period.
9. Besides this, the plaintiff has stated that the rental for the
subsequent six months also became due. The prayer in this application
is also for direction for deposit of rent for the suit property by the tenant
be issued that the sum which became due be deposited in the form of
Fixed Deposit till the final decision of the suit. Another prayer was
made to the effect that the tenant should be directed to file the lease
deed pertaining to the said property.
10. The said lease deed dated 21st April, 2005 has already been
filed by defendant No.1 on 4th February, 2009 which shows that the
lease deed was executed between the parents of the plaintiff and Dr.
Stephen Dryer being lessee to hold the demised premises for a term of
four years commencing from 1st July 2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.1
lakh. Accordingly the lease deed will be expiring on 30 th June, 2009 and
in view thereof, without prejudice to the rights and contention of the
parties as per order dated 20th May, 2008 the tenant is directed to
deposit the bi-annual rent payable till 30th June, 2009 in respect of the
suit property with the Registrar General of this Court on or before 20th
April, 2009 alongwith arrears, if any. These applications which have the
similar prayer have been opposed by the defendants No.1 and 2 on
various grounds. In fact the said defendants have taken the same pleas
which have been taken in the written statement. However, in reply to IA
No.587/2008 the said defendant No.1 has in para 4 of the preliminary
objections has made the following statement :
"4. That the answering defendant is ready and
willing to open a fixed deposit account and shall deposit
the entire rent in the said account to prevent loss of
interest and undertakes not to use the said amount for his
personal use till the decision of the case/further
directions of this Hon'ble Court and shall also furnish
any security to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court."
11. It is pertinent to mention here that the lease deed in question
will be expiring on 30th June, 2009 and in view thereof without going to
the merit of the case and also without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties, the earlier order passed by this Court on 20 th
May, 2008 shall continue and the defendants/tenants are directed to
deposit the rent payable till the month of June, 2009 in respect of the
property in question with the Registrar General of this court on or
before 20th June, 2009 along with arrears, if any.
12. The amount deposited by the tenant shall be kept in the FDR
initially for a period of one year which shall be renewed from time to
time as per directions of this court.
13. Since this lease deed is expiring on 30 th June, 2009, the
parties are at liberty to make appropriate application in case of change
of circumstances or any other arrangement is made in respect of the
property in question, it shall be decided by the court as per merits of
the case. These applications are disposed of accordingly.
14. List this matter on 30th April, 2009 along with the other cases
which were ordered to be transferred from the District court vide order
dated 13th March 2009 for further proceedings.
A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for
both the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J
APRIL 08, 2009
SD
