IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the unequivocal directions given in a decree and highlighted the right of the Appellant Bank to seek adjustment of the advance rent deposit against the final decree of mesne profits.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral) - The present appeal impugns the orders dated 17.11.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge-07 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Ex. No.353/22, titled as Chetan Gadi v. Allahabad Bank (`Executing Court') whereby the Executing Court dismissed the objections filed by the Appellant and vide separate order dated 17.11.2023 the Executing Court directed for issuance for warrants of attachment against the movable properties of the Appellant.

1.1. The Appellant is the original judgment debtor and the Respondent is the original decree holder before the Executing Court.

1.2. The execution petition arises out in pursuance of the order dated 14.12.2023 passed in the Civil Revision Petition bearing No. 121/2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, titled as Chetan Gadi v. Allahabad Bank (`Revision Petition') filed by Respondent against the Appellant herein.

1.3. In the Revision Petition, the Coordinate bench of this Court partly decreed the civil suit of the Respondent filed before the ADJ-01, West/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civ DJ/612585/2016 (`Trial Court') with respect to the recovery of possession of the premises A-3/32, Ground Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 (`suit premises') against the Appellant with the direction to be vacated on or before 30.09.2022. It was further directed to the Appellant to pay use and occupation charges of Rs.1,60,000/- per month for the period commencing from 1st January, 2022 and besides the use and occupation charges, the applicable service tax and statutory charges will also be payable by the Appellant.

1.4. Thereafter Respondents filed the execution petition against the Appellant for execution of the order dated 14.12.2021 to recover the arrears of use and occupation charges. The Respondents claimed use and occupation charges for the period January 2022 till May 2022 as per the said order. The Appellant herein filed objections disputing its liability by seeking adjustment of the advance rent lying deposited with the Respondent. However, as the objections filed by the Appellant in the said execution petition before the Executing Court was dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.11.2023. The Executing Court has directed the Appellant to make good the entire amount for the said period. Hence the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Executing Court has failed to examine Clause 16 of the Lease Deed dated 29.05.2006.

2.1. He states that in Clause 16 of the Lease Deed, it is contemplated that the deposit of advance rent of six (6) months will be adjusted at the time when the suit premises are vacated by the Appellant, bank.

2.2. He states that the Appellant herein, therefore, sought adjustment of the amount of Rs.6,34,500/- which were paid as advance rent to the Respondent towards the amount payable for the arrears of use and occupation charges.

2.3. He states that considering the fact that the Appellant herein is a Nationalized Bank, therefore, there the Respondent can have no apprehension with respect to recovery of amount, in the event, decree of mesne profits is passed by the Trial Court post-trial.

2.4. He states that Rs.6,34,500/- is the only amount due and the Appellant is entitled to seek an adjustment. He states that the said amount has also been accounted for in audit for the said purpose.

3. None appears on behalf of the Respondent.

4. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

5. The Executing Court vide order dated 17.11.2023 has rejected the aforesaid submission of the Appellant in view of the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the Revision Petition. The operative paragraph of the said order dated 14.12.2021 reads as under:

"10. Admittedly, the Bank is a tenant in respect of the suit premises. Thus, the Bank cannot continue in possession of the suit premises, without negotiating a fresh