AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna Murari, J.—This is an application seeking extension of time by a further period of four months to vacate the premises which the applicant is under an obligation to vacate by 31st July, 2010 under the judgment dated 9.3.2010.
Heard Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mrs. Tulika Prakash for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V. S. Mishra for the respondents.
This Court vide judgment dated 9.3.2010 while dismissing the revision allowed the applicant to retain possession of the premises till 31st July, 2010 subject to the condition of filing an undertaking before the executing court that it shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the respondent on or before 31st July, 2010 and to pay a sum of Rs. 60.00 lacs per month with effect from February, 2010 for use and occupation.
It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that though they have been able to complete civil construction work for the broadcasting center but due to reasons beyond their control, the shifting of the news telecast channel which is a highly technical process involving clearance from various Government and non Government Agencies cannot be completed till the dead line given by this Court.
I have gone through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application setting out various reasons and details on account of which the delay has occurred and the applicant is unable to meet the dead line set by this Court for vacating the premises.
Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. A counter affidavit has also been filed denying the allegations made in the affidavit by the applicant which has also been perused by me. It has been submitted by Sri Rakesh Dwivedi that the conduct of the applicant has been such that he is not entitled for any further extenion of time. It has been contended that ever since the compromise decree was passed the applicant had been giving assurance to vacate the premises as per terms of compromise but when he failed to do so, the execution was filed wherein a writ of possession was issued which was challenged before this Court and even the assurance given before this Court to vacate the premises in a phased manner has not been honoured by the applicant and thus, it is disentitled from seeking any further extension of time.
I have considered the arguments and counter arguments. Under the memorandum of understanding arrived at between the parties on the basis of which the decree was passed, the applicant was to vacate the premises in question by 30.9.2009, certain area was vacated and possession of the same was handed over to the respondent but possession of substantial area was retained, the respondent had to file execution case wherein writ of possession was issued. The matter travelled to this Court. After hearing the parties, the revision was dismissed. The applicant made a prayer to retain the possession till January, 2011. However, on equitable consideration, this Court allowed the applicant to retain the possession till 31st July, 2010 subject to certain conditions enumerated above. It is to be taken note that before this Court also affidavit was filed setting forth the details that premises will be vacated in a phased manner which has not been honoured by the applicant.
No doubt, the conduct of the applicant is such which dis-entitles it from invoking equitable jurisdiction of this Court seeking any further time to retain the possession. However, inspite of such conduct of the applicant, there are various other facts which are weighing in the mind of the court while considering the prayer made by the applicant. Admittedly, the applicant and respondent both are T. V. Channels. Undoubtedly, because of premises being retained by the applicant, the respondent''s plan for expansion are being delayed resulting into financial losses but on the other hand the question which heavily weighs in the mind of the court, is that in case, the applicant is thrown out by force that would result in complete closure of the channel which would not only affect the applicant but may also result in loss of employment of the employees of the applicant who are stated to be about 800 in numbers, for not fault of theirs.
On one hand is the undisputed legal right of the respondent to be put in possession forthwith, on the other hand refusal to extend time may result in killing a running T.V. Channel seriously affecting persons associated with it in some way or the other for no fault on their part. Closure of a running T.V. Channel would be for nobody''s benefit.
The Courts always against the equities on both sides. In spite of conduct of the applicant and there being an undisputed right in the respondent to have the possession of the disputed premises and all other equipments forthwith, the need to extend the deadline for vacating the premises by the applicant, in the facts and circumstances, outweighs when put on the scales of equity.
The applicant has made a prayer to extend the time by four months. However, in the interest of justice, and the facts and circumstances, the Court feels appropriate, to extend the time, as a last opportunity, till 30.10.2010 on the same terms and conditions contained in the judgment dated 09.03.2010, i.e., subject to the applicant filing an undertaking on affidavit with the executing court to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of premises in dispute alongwith all leased out equipments under the hire purchase agreements to the respondent on or before 31.10.2010, and pay a sum of Rs. 60lacs per month for use and occupation.
Subject to aforesaid direction, the application stands disposed of.