Dismissed

Yama Merajuddin v. Usha Rathi & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Dec 2024RFA/891/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenant appealed against a consent/compromise decree based on mediation settlement requiring him to vacate tenanted premises. Held appeal barred under Section 96(3) CPC and frivolous; no fraud alleged; time to vacate expired; rent deed showed monthly rent above DRC Act threshold. Appeal dismissed with costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Yama Merajuddin Vs Usha Rathi & Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 16.12.2024

¶4

- RFA 891/2024, CM APPL. 73718/2024, 73720/2024, 73719/2024 & 73717/2024

¶5

YAMA MERAJUDDIN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Bhaskar Upadhaya, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

USHA RATHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate for R1

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶9

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶10

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 05.09.2024 to the present respondent no. 1, who, in turn had to pay a total amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the appellant; besides that, the parties had also agreed that the appellant would pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- 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.

¶11

RFA 891/2024 Page 1 of 3 pages

¶12

GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb483 5d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2 KATHPALIA EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2024.12.16 17:10:04 -08'00'

¶13

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 6.12.2024 17:48:04

¶14

Despite being repeatedly requested to address the maintainability of this appeal in view of bar under Section 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 Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

¶15

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 dated 18.09.2017. 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 dated 08.06.2023. Towards arrears of rent, the respondent no. 1 also claimed Rs.2,70,000/with 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 dated 29.04.2024. When the mediation settlement came up before the Trial Court on 09.09.2024, 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

¶16

RFA 891/2024 Page 2 of 3 pages

¶17

GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb483 5d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD KATHPALIA 2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2024.12.16 17:10:26 -08'00'

¶18

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 6.12.2024 17:48:04

¶19

by one month i.e. till 05.10.2024. The learned Trial Court passed consent decree on the basis of mediation settlement. Hence, the present appeal.

¶20

In view of Section 96(3) CPC, the present appeal is clearly not maintainable. Besides, it is nobody’s case that the settlement was arrived at fraudulently. Most importantly, even the period of three months to vacate the subject property has clearly expired, so there is no justification for the appellant to continue to be in possession of the subject property. As regards the money which the respondent no. 1 had to pay, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 undertakes to deposit the same before the execution court on the date already fixed i.e. 23.12.2024.

¶21

So far as the solitary plea of appellant qua maintainability of the suit in view of bar under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, suffice it to record that the unchallenged registered rent deed dated 18.09.2017 clearly stipulates the rate of rent to be Rs. 45,000/- per month.

¶22

The appeal is not just not maintainable, rather it is totally frivolous, so dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to respondent no. 1 and the balance shall be deposited with DHCLSC within one week. Accompanying applications also stand dismissed.

¶23

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb 4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI, serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80C BD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2024.12.16 17:10:55 -08'00' GIRISH KATHPALIA, J. DECEMBER 16, 2024/ as

¶24

RFA 891/2024 Page 3 of 3 pages

¶25

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 6.12.2024 17:48:04

Yama Merajuddin v. Usha Rathi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Yama Merajuddin v. Usha Rathi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Narain (Deceased) through Lrs & Ors. Vs Mera Baba Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Naresh Kumar Vs Neeraj Thakur

M/S Gyan Sales Corporation Vs Rajendra Prasad

Mohit Virmani & Anr. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

M/S Emsons Radio Corporation Vs the Controlloing Authority & Anr.

M/S Gtl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Vijay K Kohli