Himachal Pradesh High Court
Subhash Aggarwal vs 3 Today on 5 January, 2022
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
ON THE 5th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CIVIL REVISION NO. 236 OF 2017
Between:-
1. SUBHASH AGGARWAL, AGED 63 YEARS.
r to
2. SH. VINOD AGGARWAL, AGED 65 YEARS
BOTH SONS OF LATE SH. AMAR NATH,
RESIDENT OF AMAR BHAWAN, LOWER
JAKHOO, SHIMLA-171001 HP
....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI R.K. BAWA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH AJAY KUMAR
SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. SADHNA BUTAIL, WIFE OF LATE
SH.RAJENDER LAL, NEW BUTAIL
BUILDING, FLAT NO. 17, NEW BUTAIL
BUILDING, LOWER BAZAR, SHIMLA
171001 AND OTHERS.
.......RESPONDENT
2. SMT. RADHA
3. SMT. SUNITA GOEL,
BOTH DAUGHTERS OF LATE SH.AMAR
NATH, C/O SET NO. 2, GROUND FLOOR
BLOCK NO. 99/1, NEW BUTAIL BUILDING,
LOWER BAZAR, SHIMLA
4. ANIL GODL (HUSBAND) OF LATE SMT.REKHA
5. MOHIT (SON) OF LATE SMT. REKHA,
6. SHIPRA (DAUGHTER) LATE SMT. REKHA,
C/O SET NO. 2, GROUND FLOOR, BLOCK
NO. 99/1, NEW BUTAIL BUILDING, LOWER
BARAR, SHIMLA-171001 ...PROFORMA RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:33:45 :::CIS
2
(BY MR. ASHOK SOOD, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR.ABHISHEK
.
SOOD, ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for order this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
Present petition has been filed under Section 24 of
the Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the order/judgment
dated 28.7.2017 passed by learned Appellate Authority (3),
Shimla in Rent Appeal RBT No. 10-S/13(b) of 2017/14 titled
Rajinder Lal Butail vs. Tara Vati and others, which had arisen out
of orders of eviction dated 29.5.2014, passed in Rent Petition No.
211/2 of 2013/06, titled as Rajinder Lal Butail and another vs.
Tara Wati and others by Rent Controller, Shimla.
2 The matter has been amicably settled between the
parties and parties have filed a joint application under Order 23
Rule 3 CPC. The terms and conditions of compromise have been
narrated in application.
3 Today, Mr. Vinod Aggarwal and Ms. Reeta Gupta,
General Power of Attorney of respondent No.1 Sadhna Butail, are
present in person. They have been duly identified by their
respective counsel. Their statements on oath have also been
recorded.
4 Statement of petitioner No.2 Vinod Aggarwal, reads
as under:-
"I along with my brother Subhash Aggarwal, are in
possession of premises in reference in view of
.
decision passed by Appellate Authority (III), Shimla
in Rent Appeal RBT No. 10-S/13(b) of 2017/14
decided on 28.7.2017. Presently, proforma-
respondents No. 2 to 6 namely Radha, Sunita Goel,
Anil Goel, Mohit and Shipra are not in possession of
premises in reference. Proforma respondents No. 2
and 3 are our sisters and respondents No. 4 to 6 are
children of third sister namely Rekha, who has
expired. They are residing in their respective houses
and thus, they have no right in premises in
reference.
Matter has been amicably settled with
respondent/land lady Sadhna Butail and terms of
compromise have been reproduced in joint
application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC on behalf
of petitioners and respondent No.1 Sadhna Butail.
The application has been filed for recording the
compromise and accepting the undertaking given by
parties. I am well conversant with English language. I
have gone through contents of application. I endorse
the same to be true and correct and I undertake to
abide by the same. In case of non-compliance of
undertaking given by either party, the said party, in
addition, shall be liable to face legal consequences
and shall also be liable for contempt of Court. The
application is duly supported by affidavit of my
brother Subhash Aggarwal, who has also signed the
application in my presence. I endorse my signatures
as well as signatures of Subhash Aggarwal on
application and signatures of my brother on affidavit
filed in support of application.
.
We have entered into compromise and I have
deposed in Court out of my free will, consent, and
also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure
etc."
5 Statement of Reeta Gupta, General Power of
Attorney of respondent No.1 Sadhna Butail, reads as under:-
"My mother/respondent No.1 has executed General
Power of Attorney in my favour. I am competent and
duly authorized to compromise the matter with
petitioners on behalf of my mother/respondent No.1
Sadhna Butail. I am placing the photocopy of
General Power of Attorney on record, which is
Ext.PX. (Original seen, compared and returned).
Ext.PX is true and correct photocopy of original
General Power of Attorney. I have heard the
statement of Mr.Vinod Aggarwal. I endorse the same
to be true and correct in its entirety. I, on behalf of
respondent No.1 also, have agreed to abide by terms
of compromise reproduced in application under Order
23 Rule 3 CPC and accordingly, the eviction order
shall not be executed before 31st July, 2022.
I have also received cheque of Rs.20,000/- as
mentioned in the application. The application has
been signed by me. I have sworn an affidavit in
support of application. I identify and endorse the
signatures on application as well as on affidavit.
I am making this statement and have
also compromised the matter out of my free will,
consent, and also without any kind of threat,
coercion or pressure etc."
.
6 The terms and conditions of compromise, as stated
in application, are as under:-
"1. That parties hereto have reconciled matter and
have compromise the present dispute whereby the
petitioners-tenants and Performa Respondents
accept the eviction Order-Judgment dated 28.7.2017
passed by learned Appellate Authority (III) Shimla
H.P. in Rent Appeal NO. RBT No.10/13 of 2017/14 as
correct and said eviction order passed on both
grounds may kindly be affirmed by this Hon`ble
Court while giving time to petitioners-Tenants and
Performa Respondents to vacate the demised
premises on or before 31.7.2022 by all means.
Accordingly, the petitioners-tenants hereby
undertake to vacate the said premises on or before
31.7.2022 and the respondent-landlady hereby
undertakes not to execute the said eviction order
before 31.7.2022. The petitioners-tenants also
hereby give up their right of re-entry as they have
built their own residential building and aforesaid
eviction order also stood passed on the said ground
also. The petitioners-tenants shall not claim re-entry
in the premises in question on reconstruction of the
same.
2. That the petitioners-tenants hereby undertakes
to pay Rs.40,000/- towards full and final claim of use
and occupation charges which is amount is mutually
settled and agreed upon between the parties
hereto. Out of aforesaid agreed use and occupation
charges Rs.20,000/- are hereby paid by petitioners-
tenants to landlady through Cheque No.331318
.
dated 03.01.2022 Punjab National Bank, Lower
Bazar, Shimla which cheque is handed over to
respondent today in the court and remaining
balance use and occupation charges of Rs.20,000/-
shall be paid by the petitioners-tenants at the time
of vacation of premises by aforesaid stipulated date.
The petitioners-tenants hereby undertakes to clear
and pay all kind of electricity, water consumption
charges, and garbage charges to the concerned
authorities before vacation of the premises by
aforesaid stipulated date.
3. That the petitioners-tenants herein hereby
affirm that they Performa respondents are not in
possession premises as the premises are in physical
occupation and possession of petitioners-tenants
only and they will vacate and hand over the
possession of the same to Landlady Smt. Sadhna
Butail through her General Attorney Rita Gupta only
by aforesaid stipulated date. In the event of death
of Smt. Sadhna Butail in that event also the
possession shall be handed and given only to Rita
Gupta being her daughter and legal heir.
4. In the event of breach of undertaking by the
petitioner-tenant in any manner, the same will
amount to committing contempt of court and the
Landlady shall be entitled to execute the eviction
order forthwith.
5. That the petitioners-tenants shall not part with
possession of the premises in question in favour of
any third person(s) except to landlady and Smt.
Rita Gupta during the aforesaid period of six
.
months. The parties hereto remain bound by this
undertaking."
7 In view of above, this petition is disposed of in terms
of compromise by affirming the eviction order passed by the
Appellate Authority(3), Shimla in Rent Appeal RBT No. 10-S/13(b)
of 2017/14, titled Rajinder Lal Butail vs. Tara Vati and others and
the petitioners are directed to pay Rs.40,000/- to respondent
No.1 towards full and final claim of use and occupation charges
and out of which, Rs.20,000/- have been paid by petitioners to
respondent No.1 and balance use and occupation charges of
Rs.20,000/- shall be paid by petitioners at the time of vacation of
premises i.e. on or before 31.7.2022, failing which, in addition to
other civil consequences, the petitioners shall be liable for
contempt for violation of undertaking given in compromise.
8 Matter has been settled during the process of
mediation. Therefore, for making earnest efforts made for
settling the dispute by learned Mediator Mr.G.D. Verma, Sr.
Advocate and active cooperation extended by parties and
meaningful advise rendered by their counsel is highly
commendable.
All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
.
stand disposed of accordingly.
January 05, 2022 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
r to
