Petitioner challenged order for eviction and sought extension to vacate premises. Court dismissed petition noting petitioner's failure to pay arrears, lack of merit in her claims, and uncalled-for insistence on hearing.
Petition dismissed; petitioner ordered to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to respondent within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~
Through : Mr.K.K.Malviya and Mr.Sanjiv Joshi, Advocates.
versus
M/S REGAL APARTMENTS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through : Mr.N.K. Aggarwal, Advocate with Ms.Shikha Pahuja and Ms.Premlata Anand, directors of respondent company.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
CM(M) 1007/2018 Page 1 of 6
CM(M) 1007/2018 Page 2 of 6
approx., hence the Court tried to intervene to settle the matter. On 21.12.2017 the petitioner also moved an application under Section 151 CPC stating interalia she is ready to pay `5,00,000/-
on or before 31.01.2018 and needed some time to vacate the premises. The petitioner was asked to personally appear on 03.01.2018. However on 03.01.2018 since huge arrears of the mesne profits had accumulated and the petitioner herein had showed her unwillingness to vacate the premises, and since was not even willing to clear the arrears, her application under Section 151 CPC dismissed;
(vii) on 20.01.2018 the petitioner herein moved an application for transfer of this suit but the application was dismissed on 06.02.2018. The petitioner moved yet another application but it was also dismissed with a cost of `10,000/- to be deposited with
the Prime Minister National Relief Fund (PMNRF). It has not been deposited so far;
(viii) on 18.04.2018 the judgment was passed in Civil Suit No.48701/2014 wherein the petitioner was directed to deliver the possession of flat No.9, Pratap Singh Building, New Delhi, viz., first floor and a room on second floor and to pay the damages. An RFA 603/2018 was then filed by the petitioner herein but it was also withdrawn on 31.07.2018 while the Court was dictating the judgment. The petitioner even filed objections in the execution petition which were also dismissed by the
CM(M) 1007/2018 Page 3 of 6
impugned order dated 14.08.2018 and against the said order the petitioner is before this Court.
CM(M) 1007/2018 Page 4 of 6
order which rightly dismissed the objections against the judgment dated 18.04.2018.
1 crore and instead is conveniently occupying the premises in the heart of the city at Connaught Place. The petitioner even had not deposited the cost of 10,000/-, as was directed to be paid vide order dated 06.02.2018 in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. Not only this Court had already dismissed the prayer in the petition qua setting aside of the impugned order dated 14.08.2018 and it was only upon the request of the petitioner’s counsel the notice of this petition was issued to a limited extent qua petitioner’s request for the extension of time to vacate the premises, yet the petitioner insisted on hearing on merits, which conduct was uncalled for.YOGESH KHANNA, J.
CM(M) 1007/2018 Page 5 of 6
DECEMBER 04, 2018
DU
CM(M) 1007/2018 Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner company had the right to recover possession despite dispute over title.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the petitioner's objections should be set aside.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pramoda Patel
M/s Regal Apartments Pvt Ltd
Yogesh Khanna
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court