Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V.K. SHALI, J.
METAL BOX INDIA LTD. & ORS. - Appellants
Vs.
T.K. SEHGAL & SONS (HUF) & ORS. - Respondents
RFA 97/2012, CM(M) 439/2013, CONT.CAS(C) 434/2013, 504/2013 & 452/2014
Decided On : 26-05-2016
Undertaking - Property Possession Dispute - Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, Order 23 Rule 3 CPC - The court enforced an undertaking filed by the appellant to vacate the premises within two years and pay mesne profits, rejecting the appellant's attempt to retract from the undertaking. The court held that the order was enforceable and dismissed the appellant's applications seeking to challenge the order.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, filed an appeal against a decree of eviction and subsequently agreed to vacate the premises within two years and pay mesne profits as per the court's order. The appellant later sought to challenge the order, contending that it was unenforceable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had voluntarily accepted the terms of the order and complied with it, and therefore, the order was enforceable. The court dismissed the appellant's applications seeking to challenge the order.
Issues: The main issue was the enforceability of the court's order based on the appellant's undertaking to vacate the premises and pay mesne profits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's voluntary acceptance and compliance with the order rendered it enforceable, rejecting the appellant's attempt to retract from the undertaking.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's applications and held the order to be enforceable, giving the appellant three months to vacate the premises.
V.K. SHALI, J.
1. These are three contempt petitions, one CM (Main) and one Regular First Appeal which are being taken up together as the present order will effect almost all these cases. Arguments were actually heard only on the application being CM APPL.30021/2015 and other pending applications in the main matter bearing RFA No.97/2012.
2. Before giving the facts of the present case I am tempted to reproduce the saying that ‘Fools make houses and wise men live in them’. This is the most apt saying in the context of the present batch of petitions. How it is apt and fitting most appropriately to the facts of the case will be reflected by the facts of the stance taken by the parties. It would be pertinent here to reproduce the brief facts of the case first.
3. One T.K. Sehgal and sons (HUF) through its Karta Respondent/plaintiff No.1 (herein) filed a suit for possession and damages against Metal Box India Limited, formerly known as Metal Box of India Limited, registered office at Allahabad Bank Building, 2nd Floor, 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi claiming the possession of the Northern portion of the property No.4, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi, comprising ground floor, first floor and Barsati floor along with four servant quarters and two garages, etc. on a monthly rent of Rs.4360/- exclusive of water and electricity charges. In addition to this, a decree for a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of damages for use and occupation was also claimed for the period from 01.06.1991 to 30.06.1991 as well as future damages/mesne profits at the aforesaid rate till the actual possession of the premises is delivered. It was the case of T.K. Sehgal and Sons and they had let out the aforesaid property to the appellant/Metal Box on a monthly rent of Rs.4360/- and the tenancy month was to commence from first of each English calendar month and to end with the last day of English Calender month. The respondent/plaintiff had terminated the tenancy of the appellant/Metal Box vide notice dated 07.04.1991 which was duly served on them on 13.04.1991 by registered post the tenancy had been terminated w.e.f. 31.05.1991 and since they failed to vacate the premises, a suit for possession was filed and damages at the rate of Rs.50,000/- were claimed.
4. The appellant/Metal Box denied the ownership of T.K. Sehgal and Sons (HUF). It has taken the plea that the rent was being paid regularly. It was denied that the rent was Rs.4360/-. It was stated that the rent of Rs.2760/- with an interest of Rs.1600/- per month and therefore the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. The damages @ Rs.50,000/- were also contested.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was moved by the Respondent/plaintiff. Reply to the said application was called for and the learned trial Court after hearing the arguments passed a decree of eviction on the basis of admission holding that the rent of the premises was Rs.4,360/-. Prima facie, from the documents placed on record by the respondent/plaintiff although the defendant was claiming that the rent was only 2760/- per month and a sum of Rs.1600/- was paid on account of interest on the fixed deposit. The notice of termination was not denied by the appellant and since all the basic requirements were satisfied in order to sustain a judgment on the basis of admission, the Court passed a decree.
6. Against this decree, the Appellant/defendant/Metal Box filed RFA No.97/2012 which came up for hearing for the first time on 28.02.2012 and since there was a caveat filed by the landlord T.K. Sehgal & Sons (HUF), a copy of the paper book was supplied to him and the the matter was adjourned to 06.03.2012 on the request of Mr. Parag Tripathi and Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel on 06.03.2012 the matter was again adjourned to 07.03.2012. On 07.03.2012, the following order was passed by the Court:-
“After arguments were heard in this appeal it is agreed that the appeal can be disposed of
AI
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
