Delhi High Court
Shimeg Graphics Pvt Ltd vs K K Pandit on 26 March, 2010
Author: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No.221/2009 & CM No.4663/2010
Date of Decision: March 26, 2010
SHIMEG GRAPHICS PVT LTD ....Appellant
Through Ms. Diya Kapur with Mr. Vivek
Sharma & Mr. R N Karanjawala, Advocates
Versus.
K K PANDIT ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Maldeep Sidhu, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This appeal has been preferred against the order of Additional
District Judge, Ms. Ina Malhotra dated May 15, 2009. By virtue of the
impugned order, the learned Judge on an application filed under
Order 39 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondent
herein had directed the appellant to liquidate his liability towards
arrears of the admitted rent within two weeks from the date of the
order. The appellant was also directed to ensure future remittance of
the rent to the respondent month by month on or before the 5 th day of
every month.
FAO No.221/2009
In appeal before this court, an order was passed on
July 21, 2009 and thereby the impugned order dated May 15, 2009
was stayed till the next date of hearing, subject to the appellant
depositing the entire arrears of rent with effect from February, 2008
till date @ Rs.28,750/- per month and also subject to the appellant
continuing to pay the future rent by 15th of each month.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the
respondent who has filed suit for possession in the trial Court has
yet to establish that that he has stepped into the shoes of late
Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit who was the landlady of the appellant. As
per the counsel, though the appellant was dealing with the
respondent and was also remitting rent to him during the lifetime of
Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit, but that was being done only in his capacity
as the attorney holder of Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit. Hence, it is
further submitted that unless and until the trial Court decides the
locus/status of the respondent and other related issues raised by the
appellant in the trial court, the direction issued vide order dated
May 15, 2009 directing the appellant to pay the admitted rent to the
respondent deserves to be set-aside/stayed.
As against the above, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent that the `Lease Deed' dated February 01, 2005 on the
basis of which the appellant is contending that the respondent was
only the power of attorney holder of Late Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit is
an unregistered document and no reliance on the same can, therefore,
be placed.
FAO No.221/2009
Having regard to the disputed questions of fact which have been
raised by the respective counsels before me, I deem it proper to
confirm the order passed by this court on July 21, 2009 in so far as it
directs the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent.
It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the arrears
of rent till December, 2009 have been deposited. It is further stated
that the appellant is no longer in possession of the premises and that
the keys thereof have been deposited in this court. This fact also finds
mention in the order of this court dated December 23, 2009.
In view of the above, the Registry is directed to transfer the
arrears of rent which have been deposited in this court to the trial
court and is also directed to deposit the keys with the trial court. The
arrears of rent and the keys shall remain with the trial court till the
suit is finally disposed of.
With this direction, the appeal is disposed of.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
MARCH 26, 2010
PC..
FAO No.221/2009
