Delhi High Court
Bhawani Shankar vs Surinder Kumar & Ors. on 24 December, 2014
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 24, 2014
+ RSA 318/2014 & C.M. Nos.17957/2014 & 17959/2014
BHAWANI SHANKAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rishikesh, Advocate
versus
SURINDER KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravinder Tyagi, Advocate
with respondent No.2-Joginder
Singh & respondent No.4-Sunil
Kumar in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
The concurrent finding returned against appellant-tenant is that he
is liable to vacate the suit property. The factual background of this case
already stands noticed in the impugned judgment and needs no
reproduction. Appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of Sale
Agreement of 11th November, 1989. The appellant's aforesaid suit for
specific performance was dismissed by trial court by invoking Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC holding that the said suit is time barred. Appellant had
filed CM (M) No.1043/2013, which was pending before a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court.
Vide last order, the file of the aforesaid CM (M) was summoned
and on its perusal, it becomes evident from order of 28 th November, 2014
RSA No.318/2014 Page 1
therein that appellant had not pressed the aforesaid petition against
dismissal of the suit for specific performance as time barred.
Learned counsel for appellant, on instructions from appellant, had
submitted that appellant is having a shop in the suit property from which
he is earning his livelihood and at least six months' time is needed to
vacate the suit shop.
On the aforesaid limited aspect, notice of this appeal was issued to
respondents and Mr. Ravinder Tyagi, Advocate, has appeared on behalf
of respondents and submits that respondents No. 2 & 4 are present in the
Court and they are appearing on behalf of remaining respondents as well
and on their instructions, it is submitted that appellant may be granted six
months time to vacate the suit premises provided appellant clears the
arrears of rent etc. which are due from 1st January, 2012.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that a sum of `29,000/-
already stands deposited with the trial court under the orders of the First
Appellate Court and a sum of `30,000/- was given to the father and
grandfather of respondents and to submit so, photocopy of receipt dated
11th December, 1989 has been placed on record.
Learned counsel for respondents submits that this aspect has been
already considered in paragraph No. 11 of the impugned judgment and
cannot be reagitated now, especially when in the order of 12 th December,
2014, it is clearly recorded that there is no perversity in the concurrent
findings returned by the courts below. It is also submitted that let
appellant be called upon to furnish an undertaking that he shall not create
any third party interest in the suit property during the aforesaid period of
six months.
RSA No.318/2014 Page 2
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the
trial court's judgment, I reiterate that there is no perversity in the findings
returned by the courts below and no substantial question of law arises in
this second appeal.
However, in the peculiar facts of this case, appellant is permitted to
place on record an undertaking by way of affidavit within four weeks that
he will vacate the subject premises on or before 30 th June, 2015 and will
pay arrears of rent etc. up-to-date within a period of two weeks. The
undertaking so furnished by appellant shall also incorporate that the water
and electricity charges would be paid by the appellant. It is made clear
that if appellant fails to clear the arrears of rent within two weeks and
fails to furnish the aforesaid undertaking within four weeks or fails to
abide by it, then respondent-plaintiff would be at liberty to get the decree
executed.
With aforesaid directions, this appeal and applications are disposed
of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 24, 2014
r
RSA No.318/2014 Page 3
