Delhi High Court
Neetu Sejwal vs Deen Dayal on 29 November, 2016
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 929/2016
NEETU SEJWAL ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Lal Singh, Advocate with appellant in
person
versus
DEEN DAYAL ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 29.11.2016
1. The appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and
decree dated 29.2.2016, passed by the trial court in a suit for possession,
recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and injunction instituted by the
respondent/plaintiff in respect of the first floor of premises bearing No.D-
14/157, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi on the ground that the entire premises
comprising of ground floor, first floor, second floor and terrace above the
second floor had been purchased by her from Mr.Bal Kishan by virtue of a
duly registered Sale Deed dated 3.1.2011 and the tenancy of the
appellant/defendant had been terminated in accordance with law.
2. Under the impugned judgment and decree, the trial court has directed
the appellant/defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the first floor
of the suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff. Further, a decree of
injunction has been passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff restraining
the appellant/defendant from sub-letting, assigning and/or parting with
possession of the suit premises. The appellant has also been directed to pay
the arrears of rent @ Rs.5,500/- per month w.e.f. January 2011 till March
2012 and pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as mesne profits w.e.f
1.4.2012, along with interest @ 6% p.a., till the date of recovery of
possession of the suit premises.
3. This court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant for some
time and having carefully perused the impugned judgment, is of the opinion
that there does not appear any illegality, arbitrariness or mis-appreciation of
evidence by the trial court that deserves interference in appeal.
4. The matter was passed over on the first call to enable learned counsel
for the appellant to obtain instructions from his client as to whether she
would be willing to vacate the suit premises if granted some reasonable
time, on payment of arrears of rent and use and occupation charges, as
assessed under the impugned judgment and decree.
5. On pass over, learned counsel for the appellant states on instructions
from his client who is present in court that she is ready and willing to vacate
the suit premises if granted a reasonable time and further requests that the
decretal amount may be reduced and permitted to be paid to the respondent
in instalments.
6. On enquiry, the court is informed that the respondent has already filed
an execution petition for seeking execution of the impugned judgment and
decree and the next date fixed is 16.12.2016, for reporting execution of the
warrants of possession.
7. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant
as above, the appeal is disposed of as not pressed and a limited notice is
issued to the respondent only on the aspect of the timeline for vacating the
suit premises and for negotiating the amount held to be payable under the
money decree. Issue notice to the respondent on the appellant filing the
process fee within one week, by ordinary process, speed post as also
DASTI, returnable on 19.12.2016. Notice shall also be served through the
counsel appearing for the respondent in the trial court/before the executing
court.
8. Subject to the appellant depositing the arrears of rent @ Rs.5,500/-
p.m. w.e.f. January 2011 till March 2012, along with interest @ 6% p.a. on
or before 12.12.2016, operation of the impugned judgment and decree shall
remain stayed till the next date.
9. The notice to be issued to the respondent shall indicate that the parties
shall remain present on the next date of hearing.
HIMA KOHLI, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2016
mk/rkb
