M/S Jagdambey Builders Pvt Ltd v. J S Vohra

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. FEBRUARY 02, 2016 "pp/bs"

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 2nd February, 2016 + RFA No.80/2015 &CM No.7519/2015 (for stay) M/S JAGDAMBEY BUILDERS PVT. LTD. .... Appellant Through: Mr. Meet Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mayank Bansal, Adv. Versus J.S. VOHRA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. K.R. Chawla, Mr. Sunil Verma and Ms. Renu Verma, Advs. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 impugns the judgment and decree dated 14th October, 2014 (of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-05, South District, New Delhi in Suit No.173/2014 bearing Case ID No.02406C0391252010) ejectment of the appellant from first floor of property No.A-14, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi earlier in its tenancy and for recovery of arrears of rent / mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month w.e.f. 1st December, 2007 till the filing of the suit on 8th December, 2010 and at the rate of Rs.33,000/- per month w.e.f. 8th December, 2010 till 7th December, 2013 and at the rate of Rs.36,300/- per month w.e.f. 8th December, 2013 till the date of vacation. 2. The appeal came up before this Court for admission on 20th February, 2015 when the contention of the counsel for the appellant was that since the appellant had entered into an agreement to purchase from the respondent / landlord the property in its tenancy and had also paid advance consideration, the appellant was not liable to vacate the premises. This Court however in the order dated 20th February, 2015 observing that the appellant had not filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell and had also not raised a counter-claim in this regard in the suit for ejectment and that the period of limitation for claiming specific performance appeared to have lapsed, suggested that it would be fair and reasonable for the appellant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises, without prejudice to the appellant"s right to file a suit for specific performance, if not already barred by limitation. On request of the counsel for the appellant, the matter was adjourned. 3. Though notice of the appeal had not been issued but thereafter, since 4th March, 2015, the counsel for the respondent has been appearing and efforts for amicable resolution, though were made but failed. 4. On 22nd May, 2015, the counsel for the appellant informed that the appellant had instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 10th August, 2006 of sale, being CS(OS) No.717/2015 in this Court and of which summons had been issued. It was further informed that in the said suit, an application for interim relief to restrain the respondent herein from dispossessing the appellant from the premises during the pendency of the suit for specific performance had also been filed. This Court in order dated 22nd May, 2015 observed that it would be appropriate for the Court in which the suit for specific performance was pending to consider the claim of the appellant to continue in possession of the premises. 5. On 22nd January, 2016, the senior counsel for the appellant informed that the application of the appellant for interim relief being I.A. No.5533/2015 in the suit for specific performance has been dismissed vide order dated 14th January, 2016. The senior counsel for the appellant was heard at length on 22nd January, 2016 and on his request to again take instructions from the appellant of the possibility of amicable settlement, the matter was adjourned to today. The senior counsel for the appellant today states that the appellant is not agreeable to any settlement; though the senior counsel for the appellant on 22nd January, 2016 had completed his arguments but on request has been permitted to argue further and the counsel for the respondent has also been heard. 6. The senior counsel for the appellant has contended that the status of the appellant in the premises, upon the respondent/landlord agreeing to sell the premises ea