Pardeep Kumar Singhal & Anr vs. Vijai Shri (P) LTD

Held

The Court accepted the undertakings provided by the petitioners. The primary issue revolved around the withdrawal of the petition and the terms of settlement agreed upon by both parties. The Court noted the petitioners' undertaking to vacate the tenanted premises by July 31, 2021, and to pay use and occupation charges at the agreed rate of rent, including interest and GST, until vacant possession is handed over. The petitioners also undertook to clear all outstanding utility and other charges and to maintain the premises in its current condition, subject to normal wear and tear. The Court accepted these undertakings and, in view of the respondent's acceptance, dismissed the petition as withdrawn.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. The Court did not make any specific finding on the merits of the eviction order itself, as the matter was settled by way of withdrawal and undertakings.

Facts

The petitioners, Pardeep Kumar Singhal & Anr, challenged 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.6, Liberty Cinema Building, New Delhi, on the grounds of bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioners sought to withdraw their petition before the High Court. Petitioner No.1, present in court, undertook to vacate the premises by July 31, 2021, and pay use and occupation charges, including GST and interest, until possession is handed over. They also undertook to clear all utility dues and not sublet or damage the premises. The respondent noted that rent had not been paid since October 1, 2010, while the petitioners claimed rent was paid or deposited and undertook to clear arrears within two months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners' application for leave to defend was rightly dismissed and an eviction order rightly passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the undertakings given by the petitioners regarding vacating the premises, payment of use and occupation charges, GST, interest, and clearing dues are acceptable? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners, through their counsel, sought to withdraw the petition under instructions from Petitioner No.1, who was present in court. They provided several undertakings, including vacating by July 31, 2021, paying use and occupation charges with GST and interest, clearing utility bills, and not damaging or subletting the premises. They also contended that rent had been paid or deposited and undertook to clear any arrears. Respondent's contention: The respondent's counsel noted that rent had not been paid since October 1, 2010. However, upon the petitioners providing undertakings, the respondent's counsel, under instructions, submitted that the undertakings were acceptable to the respondent.