YAMA MERAJUDDIN Vs. USHA RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/tenant has assailed compromise decree which was passed on the basis of mediation settlement. By way of the impugned compromise decree, the appellant had to handover possession of the tenanted premises bearing no 253, Munirka Village, New Delhi on 5/9/2024 to the present respondent no. 1, who, in turn had to pay a total amount of Rs.4,50,000.00 to the appellant; besides that, the parties had also agreed that the appellant would pay a sum of Rs.15,000.00 per month to respondent no. 1 till delivery of possession of the tenanted premises. On the basis of advance intimation, respondent no. 1 has entered appearance through counsel. I have heard both sides.

(2.) Despite being repeatedly requested to address the maintainability of this appeal in view of bar under Sec. 96(3) CPC, learned counsel for appellant has not advanced any submissions in that regard. The only submission advanced by learned counsel for appellant is that the suit, which culminated into settlement decree was barred by Sec. 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(3.) Briefly stated, the present respondent no. 1 being owner of the subject property filed a suit against the appellant and respondent no. 2 seeking their eviction from the subject property for the reason of non-payment of rent, which had been settled between the parties by way of registered lease deed dtd. 18/9/2017. The respondent no. 1 further pleaded in details the defaults committed by the appellant in payment of rent, followed by her having terminated the tenancy by way of quit notice dtd. 8/6/2023. Towards arrears of rent, the respondent no. 1 also claimed Rs.2,70,000.00with interest thereon at a rate of 24% per annum. Before the learned Trial Court, instead of filing a written statement, the appellant sought referral of the dispute for mediation. The mediation proceedings in the Delhi Mediation Center, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi culminated successfully by way of mediation settlement dtd. 29/4/2024. When the mediation settlement came up before the Trial Court on 9/9/2024, the appellant and respondent no. 2 submitted that mother of the appellant had passed away, so he needed three months to vacate. In response, learned counsel for the present respondent no. 1 expressed consent to extend the time to vacate only by one month i.e. till 5/10/2024. The learned Trial Court passed consent decree on the basis of mediation settlement. Hence, the present appeal.