Delhi High Court
Bhuwan Chandra Pandey And Anr. vs Delhi State Industrial & ... on 26 May, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3880/2015 and CM No.6930/2015
BHUWAN CHANDRA PANDEY AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Advocate
versus
DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED (DSIIDC) AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 26.05.2015
1. The petitioner had approached this court with the following
reliefs :
"..issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the
Respondents to comply with their letter No.
DSIIDC/IMFL/UN/L-6/2014/201 dated 20.11.2014 and
execute a rent agreement for the Premises situated at A
5/8, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi - 110 051 and pay the
outstanding arrears of rent for the Premises due from
27.11.2014 to be computed @ Rs.65,000/- per month and
additional interest @ 18% interest per month till the date
of actual payment in terms thereof;
2. Notice in this petition was issued on 21.04.2015. Since then an
affidavit has been filed by respondent no.1.
W.P.(C) 3880/2015 page 1 of 3
2.1 The learned counsels have put forth their respective
submissions.
2.2 What has come through clearly is that the premises in issue
which was taken by respondent no.1 for running a liquor vend were
handed over to the respondent on 27.11.2014. Respondent no.1 has
taken the stand that permission to run the liquor vend was withdrawn
by the Excise Department on 28.11.2014. However, for some reason,
there was no communication issued to the petitioner, to that effect, till
23.04.2015.
2.3 In these circumstances, Ms. Arora says that the said respondent
is willing to hand over the physical possession of the premises in
issue by 28.05.2015.
2.4 Mr. Narula says that his client would be quite happy to accept
the physical possession of the premises in issue subject to payment of
rent for the period spanning between 27.11.2014 and 23.04.2015.
2.5. I may only note that there is no dispute that the agreed monthly
rent for the subject premises is Rs.65,000/- per month and not
Rs.60,000/- per month as recorded in the previous order dated
21.04.2015.
3. In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of with a
direction to respondent no.1 to hand over the physical possession of
the subject premises to the petitioners on 28.05.2015.
3.1 Furthermore, respondent no.1 will pay the arrears of rent to the
petitioners for the period falling between 27.11.2014 and 23.04.2015.
The reason, the termination date is chosen as 23.04.2015, is on
W.P.(C) 3880/2015 page 2 of 3
account of the fact that this was the only point in time, the petitioner,
was put to notice that the respondent was desirous of surrendering the
premises in issue. Having had possession of the premises; albeit
constructively, is, to my mind, a good enough reason to direct
payment of compensation in the form of rent, as demanded. The
payment of the rent will be paid within ten days from today.
4. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petition
and the pending application are disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MAY 26, 2015
Yg
W.P.(C) 3880/2015 page 3 of 3
