Ms.Shabnam Shamsi vs Ms.Farzana Begum
2014 Latest Caselaw 5455 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+         C.M.(M) No. 296/2014 & C.M.Nos.5494/2014 (Exemption),
          5495/2014 (Stay)

%                                                       03rd November, 2014

MS.SHABNAM SHAMSI                                             ..... Petitioner
                Through                  Mr.Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate.
                versus

MS.FARZANA BEGUM                                              ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Zafar Siddiqui, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns

the order of the trial court dated 20.2.2013 by which the trial court struck off

the defence of the petitioner/defendant.

2. The subject suit is a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the

respondent/landlady against the petitioner/tenant. In the suit for possession

and mesne profits, an interim order for payment on account of rent @

Rs.2000/- per month from November, 2009 was passed on 05.4.2010. This

order remained uncomplied with and the case of the petitioner/defendant in

reply to an application filed for striking off the defence, and which has been

allowed by the impugned order, was that the petitioner offered rent orally

but the same was refused by the respondent. The trial court has found this

stand not believable because if the respondent/plaintiff/landlady had refused

rent, the petitioner/tenant would have immediately approached the court for

deposit of the amount in court, and which was not done.

3. The order with regard to deposit of rent is 05.4.2010, and counsel for

the petitioner informs that now the petitioner about two months back had

deposited the entire arrears of rent. However, it is clear that the petitioner

has willfully and contumaciously failed to comply with the order dated

05.4.2010 and compliance about two months back in the year 2014 cannot

be a compliance in terms of an order passed more than four years back on

05.4.2010. It is obvious that the petitioner/tenant is unnecessarily harassing

the respondent/landlady.

4. In view of the above, no grounds are made out for exercise of the

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

inasmuch as the petitioner has willfully and contumaciously failed to comply

with the order of deposit of rent @ 2000/- per month from November, 2009.

5. I may note that the suit property is a small flat situated in Jamia

Nagar, Okhla Village, New Delhi, and the case of the respondent/landlady

was that rent was fixed @ Rs.5000/- per month, but the petitioner/tenant

claimed rent only of Rs.2000/- per month, and therefore the order was

passed for deposit of rent only @ Rs.2000/- per month. Prima facie the

stand of the petitioner/tenant of rent only of Rs.2000/- per month is doubtful

because I would venture to state that even a small jhuggi is not available in

Delhi for Rs.2000/- per month.

6. Dismissed.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 03, 2014 KA