Page 1 of 15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 7^th July, 2021

Pronounced on: 3^rd August, 2021

+

CM (M) 412/2020, CM APPLs.18635/2020 (for interim relief)

& 3384/2021 (for seeking release of amount)

M/S BDR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate

Versus

NARSINGH SHAH alias NARSINGH SAH

.....Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Advocate

+

CM (M) 413/2020

M/S BDR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate

Versus

SHIKHA SHAH

.....Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Advocate

+

CM (M) 415/2020, CM APPL.18756/2020 (for interim relief)

M/S BDR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate

Versus

SHIKHA SHAH

.....Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Advocate

+

CM (M) 416/2020, CM APPL.18758/2020 (for interim relief)

M/S BDR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate

Versus

NARSINGH SHAH alias NARSINGH SAH

.....Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Advocate

+

CM (M) 417/2020, CM APPL.18794/2020 (for interim relief)

2021:DHC:2283

Page 2 of 15

M/S BDR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate

Versus

SHIKHA SHAH

.....Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

1.

These five petitions have been filed by M/s. BDR Developers

Private Limited (“the petitioner”, for short) challenging the orders dated

4^th August, 2020, passed in five suits that were filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff against various persons, named as defendants in the

said suits. Vide the said orders dated 4^th August, 2020, separately passed

in each of the suits, the learned Trial Court had listed the cases for

arguments on the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”, for short). The petitioner/plaintiff seeks the

setting aside of the said orders primarily on the ground that the cases had

been fixed on 4^th August, 2020 for passing orders on the applications that

the petitioner/plaintiff had filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and under

Order XV-A of CPC, however, the learned Trial Court adjourned the

matter for arguments to be heard on the application filed by the

respondents under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Since the issues involved

are the same in all these petitions, they are being disposed of vide this

common order.

2.

The petitioner/plaintiff claimed to be the landlord of premises No.

2021:DHC:2283

Page 3 of 15

F-419 admeasuring 200 square yards, part of Khasra No. 814; No. F-15,

ad-measuring 244 Sq. yds. part of Khasra No.811, 813/2 and 814; No. P-

80B, ad-measuring 163 Sq. Yds. part of Khasra No.812/2; No. A-25, ad-

measuring 396 Sq. Yds., (92+304) and 342 Sq. Yds. (196+146);and,

No.464, ad-measuring 283 Sq. Yds. part of Khasra No.782,all situated at

Molarband, Post Office, Badarpur Road, New Delhi. By means of the

respective Registered Lease Deeds dated 13^th June, 2018 and 11^th June,

2018, the petitioner/plaintiff claimed that it had inducted the

respondents/defendants as tenants in the said properties at a monthly rent

of Rs.50,000/-. The civil suits were filed on 25^th May, 2019 being CS

DJ/471/2019, CS DJ/467/2019, CS DJ/474/2019, CS DJ/469/2019 and

CS DJ/473/2019 respectively, for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and

mesne profits against the respondents/defendants on the ground that they

had defaulted in paying the monthly rent for more than two months

consecutively. Written statements had been filed in all the suits by the

respondents/defendants and thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed

applications under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC seeking judgment on

admissions, pointing out that the respondents/defendants had admitted the

execution of the respective Registered Lease Deeds dated 13^th June, 2018

and 11^th June, 2018.

3.

Mr. Akhil Sachar,