SHRI RAKESH RISHI Vs. CHETAN VATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts giving rise to the filing of present petition under article 227 of the Constitution are that the petitioner (defendant in court below), was a tenant of premises bearing no. 95, Third Floor, Type-II, MIG Flat, deluxe Apartment, B-5, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-110096 for a period of 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/-, exclusive of water and electricity charges. An agreement to this effect was entered into between parties on 18. 10. 1994. Rent of the premises was enhanced to Rs. 1,600/- per month from 6. 8. 1995, exclusive of water and electricity charges.

(2.) A suit was filed by the respondent i. e. landlady in the court below for recovery of possession of tenanted premises and for mesne profits in the court of Civil Judge at Delhi. During the pendency of that suit, an application was filed by respondent (plaintiff) under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC praying for fixation of interim rent @ Rs. 5,500/- per month in respect of the said premises and the petitioner (defendant) may be directed to pay the same to the respondent (plaintiff) each month with a further direction of enhancement of above rent @ 25% per year over and above the above amount of Rs. 5,500/- per month during the pendency of the case. Ld. Civil Judge decided the said application of respondent vide order dated 22. 11. 2000 thereby directing petitioner i. e. tenant to deposit mesne profits for use and occupation charges @ Rs. 4,300/- per month w. e. f. 1. 12. 1999 and to continue to deposit the said amount every month from date of the said order. Petitioner (i. e. tenant) was further directed to deposit arrears within one month subject to adjustment of rent already paid by him to respondent/landlady. Petitioner (defendant) challenged the said order by filing a Civil Revision No. 19/2002 before this Court. Vide order dated 27. 11. 2003 this Court set aside the said order and directed the petitioner/tenant to pay rent/ use and occupation charges @ Rs. 1,600/- per month till the disposal of suit. It is submitted that during the pendency of the said suit, in order to buy peace, parties moved an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC dated 7. 7. 2004 the parties also made statement on oath before Civil Judge to remain bound by the terms of compromise. The said application was allowed by the Ld. Civil judge vide its order dated 7. 7. 2004 and a decree in terms of compromise between the parties was passed. The written memorandum of compromise between the parties reads as under:

(3.) IN February, 2005, the respondent/landlady filed an application for execution of decree. The case of the respondent/landlady as disclosed in the execution application is that the petitioner/defendant did not pay the arrears of rent as per directions of the Hon"ble High Court of Delhi and as per undertaking given in the court. A registered letter was written to him on 14. 9. 2004 informing him to clear his past arrears. The petitioner/tenant (JD)has not paid rent for 4 months for the year 1999, 9 months for the year 2000, 8 months for the year 2001 and 3 months for the year 2003. His cheque no. 283999 dated 6. 12. 2004 of Rs. 2,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, purported to be rent from 6. 12. 2004 to 5. 1. 2005 as stated by him, also got dishonoured by the bank on presentation with the remarks "funds insufficient". The petitioner/tenant was informed about the above consecutive defaults by UPC and registered A. D. post on 24. 12. 2004 by the respondent/landlady and was called upon to rectify the mistake within 7 days. Despite that, he sent a false reply. It was further alleged in the execution application that the petitioner/tenant has breached the undertaking given in the court and has disobeyed the directions of the Ld. Single Judge as well as of High Court of Delhi, as such, the respondent/landlady was entitled to execution of decree forthwith.