Delhi High Court
Maharaj Kumar Kaustuvmani Pratap ... vs M/S. Your Kids R Our Kids on 30 March, 2009
Author: Manmohan Singh
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ Ex. P. No.356/2008
% Judgment reserved on : 18th March, 2009
Judgment pronounced on : 30th March, 2009
Maharaj Kumar Kaustuvmani Pratap Sahi ...Decree Holder
Through : Mr. Ritesh Singh, Adv.
Versus
M/s. Your Kids R Our Kids ....Judgment Debtor
Through : Mr. M. Tripathi, Adv. with Mr. A.K.
Singh and Mr. Vikram, Advs.
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. The decree holder has prayed for the execution of decree
dated 15th September, 2008 whereby the judgment debtor was directed
to give delivery of possession of the suit premises bearing No.17, Jor
Bagh, New Delhi to the decree holder.
2. The decree holder had filed a suit for ejectemnt on
determination of tenancy and possession with claim of mesne profit
against the judgment debtor.
3. The judgment debtor was inducted as a tenant in pursuance
of a Registered Lease Deed dated 5.8.2002 in respect of the entire
property bearing No.17, Jor Bagh, New Delhi inclusive of all the
structure for a period of 5 years starting from 01.08.2002 to 31.07.2007
on a monthly rent of Rs.1,75,000/-. Under clause 27 of the lease deed,
the lease period may be extended on the consent of both the parties. A
provision was made for enhancement of rent by 10% on the expiry of
fixed period of three years, i.e. 31.07.2005 and thus for the subsequent
two years of lease, the rent became Rs.1,92,500/- per month. Three
months rent was kept as interest free security deposit to be repaid on
completion of tenure of the tenancy.
4. The lease so executed contained a clear provision for
handing over possession on the expiry of the lease and in case of failure
to do so, the judgment debtor had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-
per day as damages and compensation for any extended period of
occupation. The judgment debtor failed to vacate the property resulting
in filing of the suit by the decree holder.
5. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the learned Single Judge
on 15th September, 2008, judgment debtor filed a Regular First Appeal
(OS) No.10/2009 before the Division Bench of this Court which was
dismissed with the costs of Rs. 50,000/- on 27th January, 2009.
Thereafter, the decree holder filed the present execution petition for
handing over delivery of possession to him.
6. While dismissing the appeal filed by the judgment debtor, it
was held in para 8 as under:-
"It is not in dispute that the lease deed dated 05.08.2002
is a registered document. It is not in dispute that by
afflux of time, the period of lease has expired. It is also
not in dispute that clause 27 of the registered lease deed
envisages further extension of lease only by consent of
parties and by execution of a fresh registered lease deed.
No such further registered lease deed has been executed
as there has been no agreement to extend the lease.Thus,
there is admittedly no further lease deed executed in
compliance of the said clause. On a specific query being
posed by the court, learned counsel for the applicant
states that the appellant has not filed any proceedings for
specific performance or otherwise to enforce any rights,
if he has such rights, arising out of the lease deed which
may entitle the appellant to a further extension of the
lease. The legal notice sent by the respondent dated
11.10.2007 also remained unanswered."
7. The judgment debtor has filed objections to the present
execution petition on various grounds one of which is that the Supreme
Court in case titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India constituted a
monitoring committee to seal the properties in which the commercial
activities were being carried out in residential area. The property in
dispute is still sealed under the directions given by the Supreme Court.
The judgment debtor is not in the absolute physical possession of the
property and thus, cannot handover the possession to the decree holder.
He has also raised other objections on merit, which in my view, is out of
consideration of this court in the execution petition and not sustainable
in law.
8. I am of the considered opinion that the above said objections
filed by the judgment debtor have no force and are untenable as the
Supreme Court by its orders dated 8th October, 2007 and 11th December,
2007, clarified that the orders passed by it in the abovesaid case would
have no bearing on the litigation pending between the landlord and the
tenant. The learned counsel for the decree holder states that the decree
holder is prepared to receive the possession of the property in the
present condition. In view thereof, the objections filed by the judgment
debtor are misconceived, false, frivolous and contrary to the law. The
same are dismissed with the cost of Rs 50000/-.
9. As a result thereof, the warrants of possession in respect of
the suit property be issued against the judgment debtor for delivery of
possession of the entire suit property bearing no. 17, Jor Bagh, New
Delhi irrespective of the fact that the suit property has been sealed as per
orders of the Apex Court.
The execution petition is hereby disposed of.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
MARCH 30, 2009
SD
