Delhi High Court
Anita Panikar @ Anita Dhiman vs Sunita Yadav on 5 September, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 05.09.2011
+ CM(M) No.1032/2011 & CM Nos. 16615-16/2011
ANITA PANIKAR @ ANITA DHIMAN
........... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anil K. Aggarwal, Advocate.
Versus
SUNITA YADAV
..........Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
20.08.2011 vide which the application under Section 151 of the
Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code')
seeking a recall of the earlier order i.e. order dated 12.08.2011
had been disallowed.
2 Record shows that the present suit is a suit for possession
and recovery of arrears of rent by the plaintiff. In para 2 it has
been specifically contended that the suit property has been given
to the defendant on rent for a period of 11 months at a monthly
rental of Rs.15,000/-; in the corresponding para of the written
statement there is no denial; it has been stated that these
averments are the matter of record. Record further shows that on
10.06.2011, the defendant was directed to deposit the entire
arrears of rent due to the plaintiff as also to pay rent in advance
before the 7th day of each calendar month; rent @ Rs.16,5000/-
which was a 10% increase on the admitted rent of Rs.15,000/- in
terms of the letter of the defendant dated 21.03.2011 which an
admitted document. This order was passed on 10.06.2011 and has
not been subject matter of appeal or revision in any court; it has
attained a finality. Record further shows that on 23.07.2011, the
defendant had filed an application seeking 15 days time to deposit
the entire rent; show cause notice had been issued to the
defendant as to why his defence be not struck off in view of non-
compliance of the direction in the order dated 10.06.2011.
Thereafter to buy time, the defendant had again filed an
application seeking a further one week time to deposit the rent;
this was on 12.08.2011; on 12.08.2011 it has been recorded that if
the rent is not paid within one week meaning thereby up to
19.02.2011, the defence of the defendant will automatically be
struck off. On 20.08.2011, a similar application filed by the
defendant had accordingly been dismissed. The Court had noted
that the defence of the defendant had already been struck off and
the matter had been listed for prosecution evidence.
3 Today before this Court there is no answer to the specific
query by the Court as to till when he would be able to comply with
the aforenoted directions; in fact the entire tenor of the
arguments shows that the petitioner is in fact not ready to comply
with the said directions; the said directions for payment of rent
are dated 10.06.2011 which order is not the subject matter of
challenge before any court. Reliance by learned counsel for the
petitioner upon a judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 1890 Jeevan
Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) &
Another is misplaced; he has pointed out the paragraph where
there has to be an unequivocal admission before the claim can be
decreed in favour of one party; this judgment is wholly
inapplicable; the defendant has in no manner controverted the
stand of the plaintiff that the defendant was a tenant in that suit
property at the rate of Rs.15,000/- which in terms of the letter
dated 21.03.2011 would stand enhanced by 10% i.e. Rs.16,500/.
4 In this factual scenario, the impugned suffers from no
infirmity.
5 Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 05, 2011
a
