ADARSH CHOPRA Vs. CHAMPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIKRAM Nath, J.-This is a glaring case of the abuse of process of court and the law. A tenant having accepted the award of the Arbitrator dated 6.6.1979 and having enjoyed the conditions for continuing in possession for about five years subsequently retracted and has still not vacated the premises in dispute even after twenty years. Further the petitioner has the audacity to further obstruct to delivery of possession due on 1.4.1984 taking recourse to frivolous litigation.

(2.) THE dispute relates to shop No. 12 in the tenancy of the petitioner, situated at, New Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad. Respondent is the owner and landlord of the said shop. As there was default in payment of rent, the respondent filed suit, for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment of the petitioner which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 123 of 1977, Smt. Champa Devi v. Dr. Adarsh Chopra. THE said suit was decided, with the consent of the parties, on the basis of award dated 6.6.1979 given by the Arbitrator (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). THE said award formed part of decree of the Court dated 5.12.1980. THE decree of the Court became final. THE tenant petitioner continued in possession under the decree.

(3.) THE petitioner failed in honouring the award and did not pay the rent as agreed, which compelled the landlord respondent to initiate execution proceeding registered as Execution Case No. 9 of 1982 claiming arrears of rent up to 31.3.1982. THE said execution was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the decree was a nullity and was not executable. THE executing court vide order dated 23.8.1982 upheld the objection of the petitioner and dismissed the execution application. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.1982 the landlord filed S.C.C. Revision No. 274 of 1982, which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 16.3.1984. Against the said judgment the landlord filed writ petition before this Court, which was registered as C.M.W.P. No. 8569 of 1984, Smt. Champa Devi v. 5th Additional District Judge and others. THE said writ petition was allowed by judgment of this Court dated 26.9.2003 and the executing court was directed to proceed with the execution. This Court held that the tenant "after reaping the benefit of the award petitioner cannot be permitted to say that he will not discharge the liability imposed upon him by the said award. A tenant who remains in possession by virtue of order of court is liable to pay such amount for the use and occupation as the Court may impose (subject to its reasonability) even though it may be more than the agreed rent."