Delhi High Court
Sheelender Kumar Gupta & Anr vs Mahaviri Devi ( Deceased) Thr Lrs on 11 June, 2020
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.06.2020
+ CM(M) 336/2018
SHEELENDER KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
MAHAVIRI DEVI (DECEASED) THR LRS ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. V.P. Katiyar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Manjula Gandhi with Mr. S.K. Gandhi, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 2280/2020 & CM APPL.11819/2020 (filed on behalf of
the respondent seeking directions to petitioner to handover the
possession)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. By this application, respondent seeks a direction to the
petitioner to handover the peaceful vacant possession of Shop No.4,
Ground Floor being part of property No.B-1638, Shastri Nagar, Near
Ashok Vihar, New Delhi and further to pay damages for use and
occupation with effect from 19.02.2018..
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that after filing of
the application, petitioner has already handed over possession on
03.06.2020.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks leave to withdraw the
application with liberty to file proceedings seeking damages for use
and occupation charges with effect from 19.02.2018.
5. In my view, no such right or liberty can be granted to the
respondent. Petitioner was a tenant protected under the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 and respondent had sought eviction of the
petitioner on the ground of subletting under 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958.
6. Eviction petition was dismissed by the Additional Rent
Controller by judgment dated 17.08.2016. Subsequently, the appeal
filed by the respondent was allowed by judgment dated 19.02.2018
and an eviction order was passed.
7. Petitioner has assailed the said judgment before this Court and
by order dated 23.03.2018, while issuing notice, this Court had
directed stay of the execution of the eviction order passed by the Rent
Control Tribunal.
8. Subsequently, on an application filed by the respondent on
15.09.2019, petitioner was directed to pay use and occupation charges
and it was directed that in case the use and occupation charges were
not paid, the interim protection granted to the petitioner would stand
vacated.
9. Petitioner failed to pay the said amount and accordingly, by
order dated 30.01.2020, the interim protection was vacated.
Petitioner thereafter undertook to vacate the tenanted premises and
handover the peaceful vacant possession on 15.04.2020. However, in
view of the lockdown on account of Covid-19 pandemic, possession
could not be handed over on 15.04.2020 but has been handed over on
03.06.2020.
10. It is observed that in the final order passed on 30.01.2020 this
Court has not directed payment of any use and occupation charges.
Rather, the interim protection granted to the petitioner was vacated
because of the default of the petitioner to pay the amount.
11. There is no adjudication of the Petition of the Petitioner on
merits but he himself stated that because he could not pay the use and
occupation charges, he was vacating the premises.
12. Because of the failure to pay the damages for use and
occupation, the interim protection of the petitioner was vacated and he
voluntarily handed over the possession of the premises. In the facts
and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that no
direction can be issued to the petitioner to pay use and occupation
charges for the period that the stay continued. Further, as the
possession has already been handed over, no relief can be granted to
the respondent in this application. The application is accordingly
disposed of.
CM(M) 336/2018 & CM APPL.11294/2018 (stay), CM
APPL.21310/2019 (vacation of order dated 22.03.2018)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
petitioner has already vacated the premises and handed over the
peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises, he does not press
the main petition impugning judgment dated 19.02.2018 and seeks
leave to withdraw the same.
2. Mr. Katiyar, learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner shall clear all
water and electricity dues, if any, with respect to the subject premises
and shall also clear the arrears of rent @ Rs.600 per month.
3. The undertaking is accepted.
4. The Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. All
pending applications are, accordingly, disposed of.
5. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
6. The next date of 15.07.2020 is cancelled.
JUNE 11, 2020 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
