Delhi High Court
Sonu vs Shakuntala on 25 October, 2016
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 486/2016
SONU ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Jitender Kr. Dhingra, Advocate
with appellant in person.
versus
SHAKUNTALA ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. R.K. Jain with
Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocates with
respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 25.10.2016
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
20.5.2016 passed in the suit for recovery of possession, damages, mesne
profits and permanent injunction instituted against him by his mother in
respect of the second floor of property No.20-B/78B, Tilak Nagar, New
Delhi, measuring 33 sq. yards. Under the impugned and decree, the trial
court has decreed the suit for possession against the appellant and further,
directed him to pay the respondent, damages @ Rs.10,000/- p.m. w.e.f.
25.12.2014 till the date of handing over possession of the suit premises to
her.
2. Appearance is entered by learned counsel for the respondent, who
states on instructions, that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant
has handed over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises to the
respondent on 23.10.2016.
3. Counsel for the appellant confirms the said position and states that the
present appeal may now be confined to the aspect of damages assessed by
the trial court @ Rs.10,000/- w.e.f. 27.12.2014. He further states that after
vacating the suit premises, the appellant has shifted to premises bearing
H.No.50B, D-Block, Tilak Vihar, New Delhi.
4. In the course of submissions, it has been enquired from learned
counsels for the parties if they are willing to negotiate a settlement with
regard to the damages so as to draw the curtains on this unfortunate
litigation between mother and son. After some negotiations, counsel for the
appellant states, on instructions, that his client is ready and willing to pay a
sum of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent for the period of 22 months
effective from 25.12.2014 till 23.10.2016 in instalments, if granted some
reasonable time.
5. Counsel for the respondent states on instructions that his client is
agreeable to receiving of the aforesaid amount, but requests that the
appellant may be bound down with a fixed schedule and the consequences
of non-adherence to the schedule may be spelt out in the order.
6. Having regard to the fact that the damages if calculated @ Rs.7,000/-
per month for the period of 22 months would come to Rs.1.54 lacs, it is
deemed appropriate to direct the appellant to pay the said amount in four
installments. The first three instalments shall be of Rs.40,000/- each and the
last and final instalment shall be of Rs.34,000/-.
7. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to pay the first instalment of
Rs.40,000/- to the respondent on or before 1.12.2016; the second instalment
of Rs.40,000/- on or before 14.1.2017; the third instalment of Rs.40,000/-
on or before 10.3.2017 and the last and final instalment of Rs.34,000/- shall
be paid on or before 1.5.2017.
8. The parties have agreed that if there is any default on the part of the
appellant in paying any one instalment, then he shall be liable to pay simple
interest on the defaulted amount @ 12% p.a. However, in the event of two
consecutive defaults, the respondent shall be entitled to forfeit the amount
received and seek execution of the judgment and decree dated 20.5.2016, in
accordance with law.
9. In token of acceptance of the consent order passed herein above, both
the parties along with their respective counsels shall affix their signatures on
today's order sheet.
10. The appeal is disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J
OCTOBER 25, 2016
sk/ap
