Delhi High Court
S.G.S. Construction & Developers ... vs Subhash Chander Pahwa & Ors on 1 June, 2020
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 01.06.2020
+ CM(M) 1491/2007
S.G.S. CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
SUBHASH CHANDER PAHWA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Saket Sikri with Mr. Ajay Pal Singh,
Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Malhotra, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.11057/2020 (filed on behalf of petitioner seeking early
hearing of CM No.31133/2018)
For the reasons stated in the application, the application is
allowed. CM No.31133/2018 is taken up for consideration.
CM No.31133/2018
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. By this application, petitioner seeks release of the amount
deposited by the petitioner towards use and occupation charges in
CM(M) 1491/2007 Page 1
terms of order dated 15.09.2009.
3. Subject property i.e. property No.10 in R Block (R-10), Green
Park, New Delhi admeasuring 200 sq.yards was owned by respondent
No.1.
4. Property was let out to respondent No.3, M/s. Scooter India
Ltd. On the plea that the said property had been sub let by M/s.
Scooter India Ltd to respondent No. 2 Sh. V.S. Singhal eviction
proceedings were filed by the Respondent No. 1.
5. The eviction petition filed against respondent No. 2 and 3 was
dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller by order dated
16.07.1987. The Rent Control Tribunal in appeal filed by Respondent
No. 1 allowed the appeal and passed an eviction order on 30.03.1991.
Second appeal was filed by the Respondent No. 3 against the eviction
order dated 30.03.1991.
6. Subject property was conveyed by a registered sale deed dated
10.12.2001 in favour of M/s. Cahill Palace (P) Ltd. The sale deed was
executed in the name of Sh. Subhash Chander Pahwa -Respondent
No. 1 by Mrs. Divya Pahwa, w/o Mr. Pramod Pahwa on the basis of a
General Power of Attorney dated 05.03.1986.
7. Subsequently, by registered sale deeds both dated 29.04.2005
M/s. Chail Palace (P) Ltd transferred the subject property in favour of
the petitioner.
CM(M) 1491/2007 Page 2
8. A civil suit was filed by respondent No.1 on 20.02.2006
seeking declaration and cancellation of General Power of Attorney
dated 05.03.1986 on the basis of which the sale deed was registered
by Mrs. Divya Pahwa, w/o Mr. Pramod Pahwa.
9. On 04.04.2006, this court dismissed the second appeal filed by
the Respondent No. 3, however, left the inter-se dispute to be decided
in accordance with law.
10. In execution proceedings, Respondent No. 2 filed an
application offering to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as user
charges to continue in possession of the ground floor of the subject
property. The ARC by order dated 08.10.2007 directed Respondent
No. 2 to deposit Rs. 50,000/- per month.
11. Petitioner impugned the said order dated 08.10.2007, by the
subject petition.
12. By a detailed order dated 15.09.2009, this petition was disposed
of, however the Court noticed that there was a dispute with regard to
the title of the property inter-se petitioner and respondent No.1 which
was raised by respondent No.1 by filing a civil suit for declaration
impugning the General Power of Attorney dated 05.03.1986.
13. By order dated 15.09.2009, this Court noted the contention of
the petitioner that the property could fetch rent of approximately
Rs.2,50,000/- per month and also that he was willing to deposit the
said amount in Court subject to the outcome of the suit for declaration
CM(M) 1491/2007 Page 3
filed by respondent No.1.
14. Consequently, by order dated 15.09.2009 petitioner was handed
over possession of the ground floor of the subject premises on the
condition that he shall deposit a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- as a security
deposit and also deposit of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- per month.
15. As per the petitioner, petitioner has continued to deposit the
said amount of Rs.2,50,000/- per month on monthly basis.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mr. V.S.
Singhal, respondent No.2 had also filed a Special Leave Petition
impugning the order dated 15.09.2009. Said Special Leave Petition
(C) No.27412/2009 was dismissed on 08.10.2001. Consequent to
dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, Mr. V.S. Singhal handed over
the physical vacant possession of the premises in question to the
petitioner.
17. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that the civil
suit filed by respondent No.1 impugning the General Power of
Attorney dated 05.03.1986 was dismissed in default for non
prosecution as well as for non appearance on 02.11.2015. He submits
that thereafter no further proceedings were initiated by Respondent
No. 1.
18. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the above, the
challenge to the title of the petitioner to the subject property no longer
survives and accordingly the petitioner is the recorded owner of the
CM(M) 1491/2007 Page 4
subject property and as such the direction to petitioner to deposit a
monthly amount subject to the outcome of the dispute between the
petitioner and respondent No.1 is not required to be continued and the
amounts deposited consequent to order dated 15.09.2009 are liable to
be refunded.
19. Mr. Gaurav Malhotra, Advocate appearing for respondent No.3,
M/s. Scooter India Ltd submits that the tenancy of M/s. Scooter India
Ltd also stands extinguished and he has instructions to submit that
M/s. Scooter India Ltd has no objection in case the amount is released
in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.3 does not have any
claim or right surviving against the subject property or the tenancy
rights.
20. Notice in the subject application was issued to respondent No.1.
Orders dated 20.12.2019 and 20.02.2020 record that respondent No.1,
Sh. Subhash Chander Pahwa as well as his General Power of
Attorney, Mr. Sidharth Pahwa could not be served as they were no
longer traceable at the given address and further that Mr. Subhash
Chander Pahwa had already been declared a proclaimed offender.
21. Petitioner had taken steps to serve them by way of publication
in newspaper "Hindustan Times" and "The Pioneer" published from
New Delhi and Lucknow consequent to order dated 21.11.2019. The
publication has duly been affected and the report as well as the
newspapers have already been placed on record. None has appeared
for respondent No.1 to oppose the application.
CM(M) 1491/2007 Page 5
22. Subject application has been filed by the petitioner seeking
release of the amounts deposited by the petitioner consequent to order
dated 15.09.2009. Order dated 15.09.2009 records that there was a
dispute raised by respondent No.1 qua the title of the petitioner,
which, the petitioner was claiming through sale deed registered on the
basis of Power of Attorney dated 05.03.1986.
23. The suit filed by respondent No.1 impugning the Power of
Attorney dated 05.03.1986 has already been dismissed for non
prosecution as far back as on 02.11.2015 and as per the petitioner no
further proceedings have been initiated thereafter by respondent No.1
either to impugn the Power of Attorney or the sale deed dated
10.12.2001 executed in favour of M/s. Chail Palace (P) Ltd and the
sale deeds dated 29.04.2005 executed by M/s. Chail Palace (P) Ltd in
favour of petitioner.
24. There is no surviving dispute to the title of the petitioner.
Accordingly the direction to the petitioner to deposit the use and
occupation charges for the subject property can no longer be
continued.
25. Accordingly the petitioner is discharged from depositing any
further amount towards use and occupation charges for the subject
property R-10, Green Park, New Delhi. Further since the petitioner is
the recorded owner of the subject property consequent to sale deed
dated 29.04.2005, the amounts deposited by the petitioner towards
security deposited as also as use and occupation charges for the
CM(M) 1491/2007 Page 6
subject premises consequent to order dated 15.09.2009 to await the
outcome of the suit filed by Respondent No. 1 is also liable to be
released in favour of the petitioner.
26. The Registry is accordingly, directed to release the entire
amount deposited by the petitioner towards security deposit and use
and occupation charges along with interest, if any, accrued thereon in
favour of the petitioner. Further, since the petitioner is the recorded
owner of the subject property and there is no surviving dispute to the
title of the petitioner, the embargo on the petitioner imposed by
paragraph No.11 of order dated 15.09.2009 with regard to parting
with possession, using of the property and carrying out additions,
alterations and modifications also cannot be continued and the same is
accordingly vacated.
27. The application is accordingly disposed of.
28. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsel for the Parties through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
JUNE 01, 2020
rk
CM(M) 1491/2007 Page 7
