AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manmohan Singh, J.—The decree holder has prayed for the execution of decree dated 15th September, 2008 whereby the judgment debtor was directed to give delivery of possession of the suit premises bearing No. 17, Jor Bagh, New Delhi to the decree holder.
The decree holder had filed a suit for ejectemnt on determination of tenancy and possession with claim of mesne profit against the judgment debtor.
The judgment debtor was inducted as a tenant in pursuance of a Registered Lease Deed dated 5.8.2002 in respect of the entire property bearing No. 17, Jor Bagh, New Delhi inclusive of all the structure for a period of 5 years starting from 01.08.2002 to 31.07.2007 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,75,000/-. Under Clause 27 of the lease deed, the lease period may be extended on the consent of both the parties. A provision was made for enhancement of rent by 10% on the expiry of fixed period of three years, i.e. 31.07.2005 and thus for the subsequent two years of lease, the rent became Rs. 1,92,500/- per month. Three months rent was kept as interest free security deposit to be repaid on completion of tenure of the tenancy.
The lease so executed contained a clear provision for handing over possession on the expiry of the lease and in case of failure to do so, the judgment debtor had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per day as damages and compensation for any extended period of occupation. The judgment debtor failed to vacate the property resulting in filing of the suit by the decree holder.
Aggrieved by the decree passed by the learned Single Judge on 15th September, 2008, judgment debtor filed a Regular First Appeal (OS) No. 10/2009 before the Division Bench of this Court which was dismissed with the costs of Rs. 50,000/- on 27th January, 2009. Thereafter, the decree holder filed the present execution petition for handing over delivery of possession to him.
While dismissing the appeal filed by the judgment debtor, it was held in para 8 as under:
It is not in dispute that the lease deed dated 05.08.2002 is a registered document. It is not in dispute that by afflux of time, the period of lease has expired. It is also not in dispute that Clause 27 of the registered lease deed envisages further extension of lease only by consent of parties and by execution of a fresh registered lease deed. No such further registered lease deed has been executed as there has been no agreement to extend the lease.Thus, there is admittedly no further lease deed executed in compliance of the said clause. On a specific query being posed by the court, learned Counsel for the applicant states that the appellant has not filed any proceedings for specific performance or otherwise to enforce any rights, if he has such rights, arising out of the lease deed which may entitle the appellant to a further extension of the lease. The legal notice sent by the respondent dated 11.10.2007 also remained unanswered.
The judgment debtor has filed objections to the present execution petition on various grounds one of which is that the Supreme Court in case titled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India constituted a monitoring committee to seal the properties in which the commercial activities were being carried out in residential area. The property in dispute is still sealed under the directions given by the Supreme Court. The judgment debtor is not in the absolute physical possession of the property and thus, cannot handover the possession to the decree holder. He has also raised other objections on merit, which in my view, is out of consideration of this court in the execution petition and not sustainable in law.
I am of the considered opinion that the above said objections filed by the judgment debtor have no force and are untenable as the Supreme Court by its orders dated 8th October, 2007 and 11th December, 2007, clarified that the orders passed by it in the abovesaid case would have no bearing on the litigation pending between the landlord and the tenant. The learned Counsel for the decree holder states that the decree holder is prepared to receive the possession of the property in the present condition. In view thereof, the objections filed by the judgment debtor are misconceived, false, frivolous and contrary to the law. The same are dismissed with the cost of Rs 50000/-.
As a result thereof, the warrants of possession in respect of the suit property be issued against the judgment debtor for delivery of possession of the entire suit property bearing No. 17, Jor Bagh, New Delhi irrespective of the fact that the suit property has been sealed as per orders of the Apex Court.
The execution petition is hereby disposed of.