Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Rajnish Bhatnagar, JJ.
Ayush Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Sunil Chanana - Respondent
RFA(COMM) 101 of 2022 & CM Appl. 51517 of 2022, RFA(COMM) 102 of 2022 & CM Appl. 51521 of 2022 and RFA(COMM) 103 of 2022 & CM Appl. 51525 of 2022
Decided On : 15-12-2022
Court encourages dispute resolution through lawful settlements and enforces agreed terms, emphasizing compliance to avoid execution of decrees.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 and Order XII Rule 6 - Tenancy dispute - Appellants, as tenants, challenged the dismissal of their application to reject the plaint, while the respondents sought a decree of possession. A Memorandum of Understanding between the parties has been filed, outlining a settlement with a payment of Rs.80 lakhs due by 30.01.2023 for the decree to be set aside, failing which possession is enforceable. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Settlement - Parties reached a lawful settlement that is acknowledged and accepted, whereby compliance with the MOU's terms is mandated, and court fees will be refunded upon proof of payment. (Paras 4-7)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellants impugn order and claim tenancy rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court acknowledges settlement and mou. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. final order conditional upon payment. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Appellants impugn order dated 15.10.2022 whereby the application of the appellants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint has been dismissed and the application of the respondents under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree of possession on admission has been allowed.
2. The appellants are tenants who had taken on rent the subject premises being first, second and third floors with roof respectively; all by virtue of three registered lease deed all dated 10.05.2019.
3. There were certain disputes between the parties pursuant to which subject suit was filed and the decree of possession has been passed.
4. During the hearing of these proceedings on 13.12.2022, it appeared to the Court that there existed elements of settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the broad terms of settlement were discussed in Court between the parties and consequently the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.12.2022. The original MOU along with affidavits of the appellant no. 1 and the respective respondents has been filed in Court. The same are taken on record.
5. We have perused the terms of the MOU and find the same to be lawful. The MOU dated 14.12.2022, affidavits and the undertakings are acknowledged and accepted by the appellants Mr. Ayush Gupta and the respondents - Sunil Chanana, Ajay Chanana and Ms. Nisha Chanana through her nephews Sunil Chanana and Ajay Chanana.
6. Parties undertake that they shall abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement.
7. The undertakings are accepted.
8. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of in terms of MOU dated 14.12.2022 which shall also form part of this order. It is directed that on payment of first instalment of Rs.80 lakhs which is payable on or before 30.01.2023, the impugned order dated 15.10.2022 shall be deemed to have been set aside. In case there is a failure on part of the appellants to pay the said amount on or before 30.01.2023, the decree of possession shall remain executable.
9. In view of the settlement having arrived at between the parties, The Registry shall refund the court fees in accordance with the rules. However, this exercise shall be carried out only after 30.01.2023 subject to appellant furnishing the proof of payment of Rs.80 lakhs. It is also agreed between the parties that the execution proceedings shall be deferred till 30.01.2023 and thereafter shall be subject to this order. Other proceedings between the parties referred to in the MOU shall also be compromised and withdrawn as settled, however after 30.01.2023.
