Om Parkash & Ors vs. Vijai Shri (P) LTD

Held

The Court accepted the undertakings given by the petitioners. The petitioners undertook to vacate and handover peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises by July 31, 2021. They further undertook to pay use and occupation charges at the agreed rate of rent, along with interest in GST, until they hand over possession. Additionally, they committed to clearing all water, electricity, and other dues before vacating and not to sublet, assign, or part with possession, nor cause any damage to the premises. The petitioners also undertook to clear any rent arrears within two months. The respondent accepted these undertakings. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The execution of the impugned eviction order dated January 22, 2019, was stayed until July 31, 2021, subject to the petitioners filing an affidavit of their undertaking within two weeks. No specific issue regarding GST provisions was decided on merits, as the matter was settled through undertakings.

Facts

The petitioners are challenging an order dated January 22, 2019, passed by the Rent Controller, which dismissed their application for leave to defend and granted an eviction order. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent (Vijai Shri (P) Ltd.) seeking possession of Shop No. 4, Liberty Cinema Building, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, on the grounds of bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioners, represented by Mr. Om Prakash, sought leave to withdraw the petition before the High Court. During the proceedings, the petitioners undertook to vacate the premises by July 31, 2021, pay use and occupation charges at the agreed rent rate plus GST, and clear all outstanding utility bills before vacating. They also undertook not to sublet or damage the premises. The respondent noted that rent had not been paid since October 1, 2010, but the petitioners claimed payment and deposit under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Act, undertaking to furnish proof and clear arrears within two months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners should be granted leave to withdraw the revision petition? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the inherent power of the Court to allow withdrawal based on undertakings). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners, through their counsel and in person, sought to withdraw the revision petition. They presented undertakings regarding vacating the premises, payment of use and occupation charges including GST, and clearing arrears of rent and utility bills. They relied on the principle that parties should be allowed to settle their disputes and withdraw proceedings based on mutual consent and solemn undertakings. Respondent's contention: The respondent, while noting the non-payment of rent since October 1, 2010, accepted the undertakings provided by the petitioners. The respondent's counsel, under instructions, indicated that the undertakings were acceptable to the respondent.