Delhi High Court
Mona Mamtani vs Mohinder Kaur Bedi (Deceased) ... on 10 October, 2022
$~126(Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1063/2022 & CM APPL.43768/2022, CM
APPL.43769/2022
MONA MAMTANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. with
petitioner in person
versus
MOHINDER KAUR BEDI (DECEASED) THROUGH
LEGAL HEIR ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
% JUDGMENT
10.10.2022
1. The order, impugned in the present petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, has been passed by the learned Additional
District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS 903/2019 (Mohinder Kaur
Medi v. Mona Momtani), on an application filed by the respondent-
plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC).
The suit
2. The respondent in CS 903/2019, claimed to be the sole, absolute
and exclusive owner of Flat No. 1026, Ground Floor, Sector A
Pockets B and C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 ("the suit
property", hereinafter), having purchased the suit property from its
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.10.2022
16:18:51
erstwhile owner under an Agreement to Sell dated 15 th March 2005.
The plaint averred that the suit property had been leased out to the
petitioner-defendant under a Lease Agreement dated 14th July 2016,
for a period of 11 months, spanning from 1st August 2016 to 30th June
2017, at a monthly rent of ₹ 33,000/-. The aforesaid Lease
Agreement, as per the plaint, was extended by a subsequent Lease
Agreement dated 1st July 2017, executed by the constituted Attorney
of the respondent, whereby the lease was extended for a further period
of 11 months from 1st July 2017 to 31st May 2018 on similar terms and
conditions. Despite expiry of the extended lease period on 31 st May
2018, the plaint alleged that the petitioner had failed to vacate the suit
property, resulting in the respondent calling upon the petitioner to
vacate vide email dated 1st July 2018 and telephonic text messages.
The plaint specifically asserts that, after the Lease Agreement dated 1 st
July 2017, which came to an end by efflux of time on 31 st May 2018,
no further Lease Agreement was executed, permitting the petitioner to
continue to stay in the suit property.
3. Alleging, in these circumstances, that a considerable amount of
lease rental was due from the petitioner to the respondent, the suit
sought a decree of possession in favour of the respondent and against
the petitioner, in respect of the suit property as well as a decree for a
recovery of arrears of rent and damages/mesne profits, apart from
permanent injunction and costs.
4. The petitioner filed a written statement, by way of response to
the suit. In the written statement, the petitioner disputed the assertion
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.10.2022
16:18:51
of the respondent that she was entitled to collect lease rent from the
petitioner. It was asserted, in the written statement, that the lease was
in the name of Sukh Preet Singh, who was the absolute owner of the
suit property and that the petitioner was continuing to stay in the suit
property, free of charge, with the consent of Sukh Preet Singh. In the
written statement, however, the petitioner admitted that she had been
staying in the suit property on payment of lease rent @ ₹ 33,000/- per
month and that, in fact, she had ceased paying lease rental since March
2018. The genuineness of the Lease Deeds dated 14th July 2016 and
1st July 2017, on which the plaint placed reliance, was also contested
in the written statement. Inasmuch as the Lease Deed had been
executed by the respondent, whereas Sukh Preet Singh had held out, to
the petitioner, that he was the absolute owner of the suit property, it
was sought to be contended that Lease Deed was not binding on the
petitioner.
5. I have heard Ms. Archana Gaur, learned Counsel for the
petitioner as well as the petitioner herself, in person.
6. It is sought to be contended, on behalf of the petitioner, that the
issue of whether the petitioner was staying in the suit property with the
consent of Sukh Preet Singh, as also the question of whether the Lease
Deeds dated 14th July 2016 and 1st July 2017, were binding on the
petitioner, were matters which would have to be decided consequent
on trial. The petitioner, who appears in person, emphatically asserts
that, as Sukh Preet Singh was in dire circumstances, he had allowed
the petitioner to continue to stay in the suit property without having to
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.10.2022
16:18:51
pay rent and that she was continuing in the suit property on the basis
of the said assurance. She, however, acknowledges that, since 31 st
May 2018, after the lease has expired, she has not paid any rent in
respect of the suit property after March 2018 and continues to stay in
the suit property, thereafter, free of rent.
7. Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the CPC reads as under:
"Deposit of money, etc., in Court.--Where the subject-
matter of a suit is money or some other thing capable of
delivery and any party thereto admits that he holds such
money or other thing as a trustee for another party, or that
it belongs or is due to another party, the Court may order
the same to be deposited in Court or delivered to such
last-named party, with or without security, subject to the
further direction of the Court."
8. Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the CPC does not envisage entering
into any convoluted factual thicket or recording of evidence. It
applies, inter alia, where a party to a suit admits that she, or he, holds
money which belongs or is due to another party. In such
circumstances, the Court is empowered to direct deposit of the said
amount in Court.
9. In the impugned order, the learned ADJ has proceeded on the
consideration that the petitioner has, in her written statement,
acknowledged that (i) she was staying in the suit property on payment
of rent @ ₹ 33,000/- per month, (ii) the Lease Deed that was drawn up
in that regard was valid for eleven months, (iii) she was continuing to
stay in the suit property till date, even after expiry of the Lease Deed
and (iv) she had not paid any rent in respect of the suit property after
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.10.2022
16:18:51
March 2018.
10. It is in view of these admissions in the written statement that the
learned ADJ has directed deposit, by the petitioner, in Court, of the
arrears of rent and has permitted her to continue in the suit property on
deposit of rent @ ₹ 33,000/- per month.
11. It is not permissible for a person to continue to occupy the
property of another without paying any lease rent or licence fee in
respect thereof, unless such occupation is permitted free of cost by
such other party. Though the petitioner has sought to contend that
Sukh Preet Singh had allowed the petitioner to continue in the suit
property without paying any rent, no evidence in that regard is
forthcoming on record. At the highest, that would be an issue which
would have to be established during trial.
12. Inasmuch as the petitioner is admittedly continuing in the suit
property after March 2018 without paying any rent, I see no cause to
interfere with the impugned order.
13. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
Miscellaneous applications are also disposed of.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
OCTOBER 10, 2022
r.bararia
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:12.10.2022
16:18:51
