Ragni Chopra Vs Rajesh Malhotra & Anr.

“a) Initiate the Contempt of Court proceedings under Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 against the Respondents and punish him for such Contempt with simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and with fine, for intentional and wilful disobeying of the Orders and directions passed by this Hon'ble Court in Order dated 20.07.2015.

¶13

b) Pass any further orders as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶14

Vide order dated 25.02.2008, learned ADJ while disposing of an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC passed the following directions:-

¶15

“9. In these circumstances, the defendants No. 1 & 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.04.2005 till 29.02.2008 towards the arrear within eight weeks from the date of this order. The defendants are also directed to continue to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month. as occupation charges/ n1esne profit/ damages·

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/05/2026 at 11:03:18

¶18

of the suit premises to the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.03.2008 till further orders. This order is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties as the parties have yet to let evidence on the occupation charges. The amount payable under this order shall be liable for adjustment against occupation charges/ mesne profit/ damages or any other amount found due at the time of disposal of this suit.”

¶19

In pursuance of the notice issued in the present petition, respondent no. 1, who appears in-person, had filed an affidavit dated 07.11.2024 in which it has been stated as under:-

¶20

“5. The aforesaid application being CM no. 13158/2012 was disposed of on 20.7.2015 directing the Respondent no. 1 to pay a rental sum of Rs. 7500/= (Rs. Seven thousand five hundred only) per month as 'User Charges' without prejudice to his rights and contentions as noted in the said order.

¶21

The Respondent no. 1, herein, has diligently paid the aforesaid directed 'User Charges till date of this present Affidavit and there is no sum outstanding, or due to the Petitioner, to best of the Deponents knowledge and information.

¶22

The Flat Owner's Welfare Association of Rishi Apartments, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019 (wherein Flat no. B-403 is situated of which one-half belongs to Petitioner), vide its letter dt. 28.9.2023, addressed to the respective Flat owners, had decided to replace six lifts in the said multi- storied residential apartments due to the fact that the existing lifts were more than 35 years old and were giving problems while operating. The Resident Owners Association charged/levied Rs. 90,000/= (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) for the said one-bedroom flat no. B-403, of which half belongs to the Petitioner, and thus the petitioner was obliged to pay Rs. 45000/-(Rupees forty-five thousand only) towards her share of replacement of lifts. Letter of the Apartment Owners Association addressed to the owners is annexed as Annexure "A" to the present Affidavit. The contract for entire replacement of six lifts in the residential complex was awarded to Otis Elevator Company. 8. The Petitioner refused to pay her share of Rs. 45000/= (Rs. Forty-five thousand only) towards the installation of the new lifts despite various reminders and requests. In the context, the Respondent, herein, in order not to be black listed by the Association of Flat Owner's, paid up the entire cost allocated to the Apartment no. B-403 and which included onehalf share belonging to the Petitioner, Certificate of Payment of Rs.

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/05/2026 at 11:03:18

¶25

90,000/= (Rupees ninety thousand only) is attached herein vide Annexure "B". The said sum of Rs. 45000/= paid on behalf of the Petitioner was adjusted against the rent/user charges being paid to the Petitioner.

¶26

To the best of Deponent's information, the contribution towards installation of new Lifts was made only by respective owners of 74 Flats in the multi storied complex, wherein Flat no. B-403, to the extent of onehalf owned by the Petitioner is located.

¶27

To the best of information of the Deponent, herein, the Tenant/User is not obliged to meet the new Lifts installation cost which is in the nature of Capital Expense and it is incumbent upon the Owner/Landlord to meet the said dues. In any case, replacement of lifts with brand new lifts, which will have a shelf life of 35-40 future years, is not deemed as a maintenance expense to the best of the deponent's understanding and knowledge.

¶28

Notwithstanding what has been stated above, in case the Hon'ble Court opines that cost of installation of the new lifts is the obligation of the Tenant/User, the Deponent herein unequivocally states that the sum of Rs. 45000 / (Rs. Forty-Five thousand only) shall be paid forthwith to the petitioner without any delay”

¶29

The present petition is being disposed of with the consent of the parties that henceforth if the petitioner is required to pay his share of any such charges raised by RWA, the respondents shall inform the former in advance by way of written communication in order to enable the petitioner to pay his share of such charges.

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶31

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith .

¶32

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶33

MAY 14, 2026 /sn/sg

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/05/2026 at 11:03:18

Ragni Chopra v. Rajesh Malhotra & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ragni Chopra v. Rajesh Malhotra & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Kohli Vs Keshav Chandra, Chairman, Ndmc

Sulekh Malik Vs Aqil Ahmed & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs Ms Nandini Paliwal and Ors.

Sushmita Biswas Vs Ms Nandini Paliwal and Ors.

Gaurav Jain Vs Commissioner MCD

Subash Chand Jain (Now Deceased) through His Lr Vs Babita

Sh. Sanjeet Kumar Vs Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma & Ors.

Kamlesh Mehta Vs Ms. Meghna Ahlawat and Others

Gundeep Singh Sood Vs Reetmohinder Singh Ahluwalia

Rakesh Maggon Vs Tejinder Singh

Jaspreet Singh Vs Swaneet Kukreja & Ors.

Dinesh Goel Vs Anita Gupta

Sonu Goyala Vs Meenu

Veer Singh through Power of Attorney Vs Kinri Dhir