Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 1444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Pankaj Singh - Appellant
Versus
State(NCT Of Delhi ) & Anr. - Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 266 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 43179-43180 of 2021
Decided On : 21-01-2022
Manoj Singh, Advocate, Amit Prakash Shahi, Advocate, Ranveer Singh, Advocate, Kailash Vadhera, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of the settlement agreement between the parties, which bound the appellant to vacate and hand over possession of the property, pay charges, and remove temporary structures.
Headnote:
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 - Mandatory Injunction - The appellant sought a mandatory injunction against termination notice issued by the respondent. The parties settled their disputes, and the appellant undertook to vacate and hand over possession of the property to the respondent, pay monthly charges, clear water and electricity charges, and remove any temporary structures.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought a mandatory injunction against termination notice issued by the respondent. The parties settled their disputes, and the appellant undertook to vacate and hand over possession of the property to the respondent, pay monthly charges, clear water and electricity charges, and remove any temporary structures.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the appeal based on the settlement reached between the parties, where the appellant undertook to vacate and hand over possession of the property to the respondent, pay monthly charges, clear water and electricity charges, and remove any temporary structures.
Issues: Dispute over termination notice and possession of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the settlement reached between the parties, where the appellant agreed to vacate and hand over possession of the property to the respondent, pay monthly charges, clear water and electricity charges, and remove any temporary structures.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of based on the settlement reached between the parties, and the appellant was bound by the undertakings made.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. appellant impugns order dated 16.11.2021 whereby the application of the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 has been dismissed.
3. appellant had filed the subject suit seeking a mandatory injunction against termination notice dated 31.07.2021 issued by the respondent.
4. appellant contends that appellant is a tenant in two shops measuring 55ft x 15ft and 25ft x 30ft. It is contended that the shops were initially let out to the appellant at the rate of Rs.10,500/- per month and the rent was subsequently increased to Rs.20,000/- per month. as per the appellant he is a tenant in the subject properties.
5. This is disputed by the respondents who contend that appellant was permitted to vend within the colony by bringing a mobile van and appellant has subsequently constructed a temporary tine shed unauthorisedly.
6. However, learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have settled their disputes. Mr. Pankaj Singh, appellant as also Mr. Kailash Vadhera, Secretary, East End apartments CGHS Ltd are present in person and connected through VC.
7. Mr. Pankaj Singh, the appellant undertakes that appellant shall vacate and hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the entire portion in the society in his possession to the respondents on or before 21.05.2022. He further undertakes that he shall not claim any right, title or interest in any of the portions in the society or claim any right to vend even through a mobile van in the society.
8. He further undertakes that he shall pay the monthly use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent society till the time he hands over the peaceful vacant possession of the entire portion in his possession. He further undertakes that he shall clear the entire water and electricity charges, directly to the concerned authorities. He further undertakes that he shall not sublet, assign or part with possession of the said portions till he vacates and hands over peaceful vacant possession to the society.
9. He further undertakes that the additions that he has made by way of a temporary structure shall be removed by him at the time of vacating the premises.
10. The undertakings are accepted. appellant is bound down to his undertaking. appellant shall file an affidavit of undertaking within one week from today on the above lines.
11. Mr. Vadhera submits that the settlement is agreeable to the Society.
12. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
13. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court we
