BHAGWAN DAS Vs. SATESH MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 6.8.2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge in I.A. No.3565/2004 under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) while dealing with O.M.P. No. No. 245/2003 and CCP No. 74/2004. The aforesaid Original Miscellaneous Petition had been preferred by Shri Suresh Kumar­ respondent No. 2 herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) to assail the arbitral award dated 19th April, 2003 rendered in disputes between respondent No. 2 and Shri Satish Mehra, respondent No. 1 herein. By the said Award, the Arbitrator held that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of second floor of property at B-123, Swasthaya Vihar, New Delhi ­ 110 092 (the suit property) on 21st March, 2002, where under respondent No. 2 had agreed to sell the suit property to respondent No. 1 for a total consideration of Rs. 5 lacs. The defence of respondent No. 2 that the actual transaction between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was that of a loan advanced by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2, and that the Agreement to Sell had been executed only as a security for the said loan was rejected by the arbitral tribunal. The Arbitrator directed respondent No. 2 to execute the regular sale deed regarding the suit property as per the Agreement to Sell dated 21st March, 2002. The claimant-respondent No. 1 had also claimed that the symbolic possession of the suit property had been delivered by the vendor i.e. respondent No.2 to him and thereafter, respondent no.2 had become a tenant in the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs. 17,000.00. This claim was also accepted by the learned Arbitrator. The Arbitrator directed respondent No. 2 to hand over vacant and physical possession of the suit property to respondent No. 1 and also directed the payment of Rs. 2,04,000.00 as rent of the suit property for the period ending 20th March, 2003 and to continue to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 17,000.00 per month to respondent No. 1 till possession of the property is delivered to him.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid OMP, the claimant/ respondent No. 1 filed I.A. No. 1613/2004 to seek a restraint against respondent No. 2 from dealing with the suit property. On 12 th March, 2004, this application was taken up for consideration by the Court and respondent no2. was restrained from transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit property.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.1, while filing the aforesaid contempt petition, also filed I.A. No. 3565/2004 in the aforesaid O.M.P. under Section 52 of the TPA seeking a declaration that the execution of the documents by respondent No. 3 in favour of the appellants was invalid in the eyes of the law, and that the said documents and the keys of the suit property should be directed to be deposited in the court.