Delhi High Court
Rajeshwari vs Amit Bajaj on 4 December, 2020
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.12.2020
+ CONT.CAS(C) 755/2020
RAJESHWARI ..... Petitioner
versus
AMIT BAJAJ ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jai Bansal, Advocate with petitioner in person.
For the Respondent: Respondent in person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CONT.CAS(C) 755/2020
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner has filed the subject petition seeking initiation of
contempt proceedings against the respondent for having violated order
dated 31.10.2019.
3. Petitioner is staying as a paying guest in the accommodation
allegedly being run by the respondent. Petitioner had filed the subject
Suit for injunction and on 31.10.2019, the Suit was disposed of as
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:04.12.2020 19:29:14
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
compromised and a consent decree was passed in the suit on a
statement given by the respondent as under:-
"Vide a separate statement, the defendant has
undertaken that he shall not dispossess the plaintiff from
the suit property without due process of law. He shall
also not interrupt the supply of electricity, water and
shall provide food, subject to payment of admitted
monthly charge to the plaintiff, which is being provided
to the other PGs."
4. Petitioner contends that despite respondent undertaking not to
interrupt the supply of electricity and water, water and electricity to
the portion occupied by the petitioner has been disconnected.
5. Respondent, who is also connected through video conferencing,
submits that no payment has been made by the petitioner after
20.07.2018. He submit that the electricity has been disconnected by
the authorities on account of non payment of bill and since payment
has not been made by the Petitioner, he has not been in a position to
deposit the electricity bill.
6. Petitioner, who also appears in person, contends that the
undertaking of the petitioner was not to interrupt supply of electricity
and water under any circumstance and the part of the undertaking that
payment is to be made of admitted monthly charges by the petitioner,
was conditional on respondent providing food and was not connected
to the supply of electricity and water and respondent was to provide
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:04.12.2020 19:29:14
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
uninterrupted supply of water and electricity irrespective of any
payment being made. She after repeated questioning submits that
payment has been made only until February 2019.
7. Though there is a dispute as to whether the payment was made
till July 2018 or till February 2019 as contended by the petitioner, it is
an admitted position that after February, 2019, no payment has been
made by the petitioner to the respondent.
8. Petitioner is continuing to reside in a room provided to the
petitioner as a paying guest, though without water and electricity. She
admits that after February, 2019, no payment has been made to the
Respondent, though it is contended that it is because water and
electricity was disconnected.
9. The contention of the petitioner that electricity and water was to
be supplied unconditionally and food was to be provided subject to
payment of admitted monthly charges is not sustainable.
10. The undertaking, as extracted above, when read shows that the
supply of electricity, water and provision of food was subject to
payment of admitted monthly charges. Since petitioner has
admittedly not paid any monthly charges after February 2019,
respondent cannot be held to have wilfully defaulted or disobeyed the
undertaking given on 31.10.2019.
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:04.12.2020 19:29:14
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
11. The explanation of the respondent is that the electricity has
been disconnected by the authorities on account of non-payment of
the bill. He submits that in view of the pandemic there are no other
occupants on the floor being occupied by the petitioner and as such he
is not in a position to pay the electricity charges without receiving the
same from the petitioner. Petitioner is not willing to pay any charges
and she continues to stress that as per the undertaking respondent has
to supply electricity and water unconditionally and she is not liable to
pay for the same. This clearly cannot be sustained.
12. In view of the above, I find no ground to initiate any
proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondent
for alleged breach of the undertaking.
13. I find no merit in the petition. The Petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
14. Copy of the judgment be uploaded on the High Court website
and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
DECEMBER 04, 2020 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:04.12.2020 19:29:14
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
