Back
High Court Of Delhi
CREATIVE TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
JOGINDER SINGH PALTA - Respondent
C.M. 1317A of 1993
Decided On : 09/27/1993
In this application the Applicant/Tenant sought further time to vacate the tenanted premises which he had undertaken to vacate by a compromise order. The Respondent/Landlord objected to grant of further time. The question arose as to whether the court has power to extend the time in the absence of the consent of the Landlord.
Dismissing the application the court.
Held:
1. This Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time in the absence of the consent of either of the parties. It is to be borne in mind that when litigation is brought to an end by the parties agreeing to certain terms, it would be unfair and unjust for the Court to pass orders, subsequently and without their consent, which would be at variance with the terms of the agreement. When there is a term in the agreement that if the premises are not vacated by 31st October, 1993 the Court decree would be executed and an undertaking to this effect is furnished, that term of agreement cannot be unilaterally altered and the undertaking not acted upon. The parties avoided judgment at the time when the compromise was arrived at. A solemn undertaking was given to this Court that the premises will be vacated. Had the time been fixed for vacating the premises without the consent of the parties, and merely by orders of the Court, there would have been no difficulty for the Court in granting extension. We do feel that the facts as made out in the application give sufficient reasons for extending the time because it appears that the applicants are constructing another house but with the respondent not giving his consent to the extension of any time this Court, has no jurisdiction to entertain a request for enlargement of time.
( 1 ) THE applicants were the tenants of the premises bearing No. C-56, Anand Niketan, New Delhi which is owned by the respondent.
( 2 ) THE rent of the premises was Rs. 4,500. 00 per month and a suit for possession was filed by the respondent in respect of the said house. A decree in the suit was passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in favour of the respondent on 4th February, 1992.
( 3 ) R. F. A. 167/1992 was filed challenging the decree. It appears that the applicants had also filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act and after the same was dismissed an Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court.
( 4 ) WHEN the appeal came up for hearing a compromise was arrived at between the parties. The terms of the compromise were that the applicants were to vacate the premises and handover physical possession of the same on or before 31st October, 1993. It was further agreed by the parties that an undertaking by way of affidavit would be filed in this Court to comply with the terms of the settlement. Payment of rent was enhanced to Rs. 6,750. 00 per month and the Special Leave Petition which had been filed was agreed to be withdrawn and on the undertaking being given the Special Leave Petition has been withdrawn. The appeal itself, viz. RFA No. 167/92 challenging the decree was also dismissed as withdrawn. Inview of the undertking which was furnished and the consent of the parties the respondent was not to execute the decree till 31st October, 1993. The respondent also, in turn, has withdrawn his suit for mesne profit which had been filed against the applicants.
( 5 ) IN the present application it has been stated that the applicants have started constructing the house but it is not likely to be completed by 31st October, 1993 and the prayer in the application is that the applicants be given a further period of four months for vacating the premises in question.
( 6 ) THE application is vehemently opposed by the respondent and the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant extension in the absence of any fresh consent by the respondent.
( 7 ) THE main question, therefore, which is to be decided is whether this Court can, in a case like the present, even without the consent of both the parties or one party, grant an extension of time by invoking the provisions of Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
( 8 ) LEARNED counsel tor the applicants has relied on an order passed in FAO (OS) 258/85 where an undertaking to vacate the premises had been given but the time for vacating the same was extended. In that case there was a dispute with regard to the ownership of the property and pending the settlement of the dispute, by the order of the Court, the premises were given on the basis of licence to the appellant therein viz. Shri Kuldeep Nayyar. The dispute between the owner and the tenant got settled and. the owner gave notice terminating the licence and required the vacation of the premises. The Single Judge ordered Shri Nayyar to handover physical possession and an appeal was filed against the said order. It was in these circumstances that the Court directed vide order dated 24th February, 1986 that Shri Nayyar should continue to pay the licence fee for the full term which had originally been granted to him till 31st August, 1987. The reason for this was that after the licence was orignally granted for three years Shri Nayyar had let out his own house and therefore, he had no premises to shift to if he was required to vacate in 1985. It was by order of the Court and not by consent of the parties, that he was required to furnish an undertaking that he will deliver vacant possession of the premises to the owner on 1st September, 1987. Thereafter an application was filed for extension of time and vide order dated 28th August, 1987 time for vacation was extended till 31st December,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
