B L KHANNA Vs. ARUN CARPETS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the procedure adopted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, in Execution Petition No. 4 of 1982. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that the Rent Controller in Execution Petition is recording evidence of the parties for deciding whether the premises in question are required for bona fide personal need. This according to the petitioner, could not be done in execution.

(2.) The petitioner let out premises No. D-17, Defence Colony, New Delhi to the respondent through their Minaging Partner Mrs. Kamini Sodhani by registered lease deed dated 27th September, 1972 for a period of two years commencing from 1st October, 1972 for residential purpose. Since the respondent did not vacate the premises, the petitioner filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1), (a), (e), (d), (e), (h), (j) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, '958 for eviction of the respondent. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the parties had arrived at a compromise and a compromise application was filed before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 4th January. 1978. The Additional Rent Controller Delhi on 6th January, 1978 disposed of the eviction petition in terms of the compromise. According to the compromise entered into between the parties the respondent was allowed to continue to occupy the premises for a further period of four years. However, further condition was stipulated that in case he failed to hand over the possession to the petitioner be would be liable to pay the mesne profit-damages at the rate of Rs. 6,000.00 per month till the petitioner got back the possession. The respondent failed to hand over the vacant possession and also did not pay the amount agreed by him towards the damages for the use and occupation of the premises even after the period agreed to by the petitioner had expired. The petitioner, therefore, filed execution petition in the Court of Shri B.B. Choudhary, Additional Rent Controller Delhi. Another suit for recovery of Rs. 8.000.00 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class Delhi for arrears of compensation and damages.

(3.) During the course of the bearing of the case in this Court, it was felt that the whole dispute between the parties could be finally settled. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that if some reasonable time was granted to the respondent to vacate the premises, he will not contest the petition. Learned counsel stated that the respondent would give an undertaking to the Court that vacant and peaceful possession of the premises will be handed over on or before 31st December, 1988. As regard the arrears of rent, learned counsel stated that he will be in a position to pay at the rate of Rs. 5.000.00 per month instead of Rs. 6.000.00 as agreed to between the parties provided he is allowed instalments for the payment of the arrears. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the premises were needed by the petitioner, who is above 70 years old for his bona fide personal need. However, if the respondent was willing to give an undertaking to the Court he would not execute the decree till 31st December, 1988.