Delhi High Court
Arya Kanya Pathshala vs Abhishek Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Anr. on 2 December, 2020
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 02.12.2020
+ CM(M) 606/2020
ARYA KANYA PATHSHALA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Adv.
versus
ABHISHEK BUILDCON PVT LTD & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanat Kumar, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
This hearing has been held by video conferencing.
CM APPL.30896/2020 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL.30897/2020 (for urgent hearing)
The petition is listed for hearing today, hence application is
rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.
CM (M) 606/2020 & CM No.30895/2020
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
order dated 13.05.2020 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal,
Patiala House Courts, in RCT no. 18/2017, dismissing the appeal filed
by the petitioner herein.
CM(M) 606/2020 Page 1
2. The petitioner in the appeal had challenged the order dated
03.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Patiala
House Courts, ordering eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted
premises i.e. 1, Doctors Lane, First Floor, Gole Market, New Delhi
alternatively known as Plot No.4A, Block No.88, Gole Market, New
Delhi, under Section 14 (1)(k) read with Section 14(11) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") on the
petitioner's failure to comply with the condition of payment of the
amount of Rs.74,608/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to the
L&DO within three months of the order dated 29.05.2004 passed by
the learned Additional Rent Controller.
3. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the
erstwhile owner/landlord of the tenanted premises had filed an
Eviction Petition under Section 14 (1)(k) of the Act against the
petitioner, seeking eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of
misuse of the tenanted property. By an order dated 22.01.2000, the
learned Additional Rent Controller had issued a notice under Section
14(11) of the Act to the petitioner and the L&DO for determining the
misuser and any charges to be paid for regularizing the same. Based
on the report of the L&DO, by an order dated 29.05.2004, the
petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.74,608/- within three
months to the L&DO alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The
parties were directed to report to the Court about the compliance/non-
compliance of the said order. Admittedly, the petitioner did not make
the deposit within the time granted by the learned Additional Rent
CM(M) 606/2020 Page 2
Controller, and as recorded in the order dated 03.05.2017, the amount
of Rs.74,608/- was deposited by the petitioner only on 22.02.2017
albeit without interest.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest
amount was deposited after filing of the appeal before the learned
Rent Control Tribunal.
5. Based on the default of the petitioner to comply with the order
dated 29.05.2004, Eviction Order was passed by the learned
Additional Rent Controller, which has been affirmed by the dismissal
of the appeal by the order impugned in the present petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
erstwhile owner/landlord of the premises had entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.07.2003 with the petitioner
whereunder he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.75 lakhs to the
petitioner for the purpose of acquiring land and making construction
of the building for running of the Girls Primary school. It is for this
reason that the order dated 29.05.2004 remained unexecuted till the
filing of the second application by the respondent no.1 herein on
03.12.2015. He submits that with the execution of the MOU, the
erstwhile owner/landlord and the respondent no.1, who had affirmed
the terms of the MOU by letters dated 14.01.2006 and 18.01.2006,
were estopped from enforcing the eviction against the petitioner
without complying with the terms of the MOU.
CM(M) 606/2020 Page 3
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even
otherwise, a second application under Section 14 (11) of the Act was
not maintainable. He submits that the remedy of the respondent no.1
was to seek the execution of the order dated 29.05.2004.
8. He further submits that the second application under Section 14
(11) of the Act would otherwise be also debarred by Law of
Limitation and could have been filed only within a period of three
years from the expiry of three month period granted by the learned
Additional Rent Comptroller to make the deposit vide its order dated
29.05.2004.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, however, I find no merit in the same. The MOU
dated 27.07.2003 has been executed between the erstwhile
owner/landlord of the tenanted premises and the petitioner prior to the
passing of the order dated 29.05.2004 by the learned Additional Rent
Controller. The order dated 29.05.2004 was never challenged by the
petitioner. The same therefore, attained finality. The affirmation of the
terms of the MOU by the respondent no.1 herein would also not allure
to the benefit of the petitioner herein. The MOU merely records that
the erstwhile owner/landlord/respondent no.1 herein shall pay a sum
of Rs.75 lakhs to the petitioner for the purpose of acquiring land and
making construction thereon. It is not the case of the petitioner that
any parcel of land has been acquired by the petitioner and the
respondent no.1 has refused to make payment for the same.
CM(M) 606/2020 Page 4
10. As far as the maintainability of the second application under
Section 14(11) of the Act is concerned, the operative part of the order
dated 29.05.2004 deserves to be noticed and is therefore reproduced
hereinunder:
"Considering the above facts, this court order the
respondent/ tenant to pay the amount of Rs. 74,608/-
within three month to the L&DO along with interests
at the rate of 12% .order accordingly. The parties
are directed to report to the court about the
compliance of non- compliance of the said order
since the respondent has not been coming a copy of
this order be sent to the counsel for the respondent.
File be consigned to record room."
11. The order directed the parties to report the compliance/non-
compliance of the terms thereof by the petitioner herein. The second
application filed by the respondent no.1 complained of non-
compliance by the petitioner. The same was therefore, maintainable
before the learned Additional Rent Controller.
12. As far as the question of limitation is concerned, the learned
Rent Control Tribunal has rightly rejected the objection of the
petitioner in this regard placing reliance on Article 66 of the Schedule
to the Limitation Act, 1963.
13. I therefore, find no merit in the present petition. The same is
dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
DECEMBER 2, 2020/dy/Arya
CM(M) 606/2020 Page 5
