Jai Singh & Anr vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Leave granted.

A decree of eviction passed by this Court on 23.09.2010 in Civil Appeal No. 8233 of 2010 has been successfully frustrated by a public body, the respondent corporation, for almost a decade.

A perusal of the order dated 03.04.2019 in SLP (C) D No. 9076/2019 and TP (C) No. 540/2019 would show that since it was acknowledged by the Commissioner of the respondent corporation that only six rooms had been handed over and remaining portion continues to be in the possession of the corporation, the same was undertaken to be vacated by 08.04.2019 and the keys were to be deposited on 11.04.2019 with the Executing Court "to verify the factual position". Thereafter, the Executing Court was to do the needful as per the orders of this Court.

It transpires that while so depositing the keys the corporation prayed that the keys be not released to the appellants, clearly contrary to the intent of the order of this Court, which was only for the purposes of ensuring that no further controversy would arise on the aspect of the possession being handed over.

We may note that the super-structure is on a tract of land of which the appellants claim ownership. The respondent seeks to raise some disputes regarding that aspect while having made an endeavour to acquire the super-structure alone without acquiring the land. Whether such an endeavour can at all succeed, given the legal domain is a moot point and would be decided in other proceedings pending inter se parties.

The keys for the remaining portion of the super-structure qua the eviction decree which has been passed by this Court, as noticed above, are lying deposited with the Executing Court without possession actually being handed over to the appellants. In furtherance of the implementation of that order and the present proceedings itself, we consider it appropriate to direct that the Executing Court will hand over the keys to the appellants and appoint a Local Commissioner to ensure that no further dispute arise in that behalf.

We further consider it appropriate, as the grievance is made by the appellants about access to the structure, to direct that the respondent will not obstruct ingress and egress of the appellants so as to enable them, their nominees / assignees / employees to fully enjoy the super-structure including access through vehicles.

The only other issue, which has arisen from the present special leave petition arising out of the impugned order, is from the observation made in para 16 of the impugned order dated 13.07.2017.

It has been opined therein that in so far as the claim of the appellants for mesne profits is concerned, the same should only arise from 23.09.2010 when the decree of eviction was restored by this Court as the High Court opined otherwise though the Trial Court has gone in favour of the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants has rightly pointed out that in view of various judicial pronouncements of this Court including in the State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Super Max International Private Limited and Ors [(2009) 9 SCC 772], the right of the appellants to recover damages arise from the date he succeed in eviction proceedings. The fate of continual proceedings would not affect that right and if ultimately that eviction order is upheld, the right to claim damages would arise from that date.

In the present case, the eviction order was passed by this Court, rather restored of the Trial Court on 23.09.2010. The eviction order was passed by the Trial Court on 11.11.1999. Thus, the right to claim mesne profits would arise from that date i.e. 11.11.1999.

Learned counsel for the appellants did endeavour to impress upon us that we should determine some ad hoc amount to be paid. We are, however, of the view that though the appellants may have waited for quite some time, it would be appropriate if this exercise is undertaken by the Executing Court albeit in a time bound manner.

We, thus, direct the Trial Court to carry out this exercise in a maximum period of four months from the date of communication of this order and needless to say both the parties will fully co-operate and assist the Court in order to arrive at a conclusion and would not seek adjournments.

We are also informed that the High Court has already disposed of Civil (Misc) No. 1105/2012 with certain directions for the Trial Court. Thus that aspect is over.

We are however constrained to say something about what transpired in the course of hearing. The first is that in the course of hearing suddenly an endeavour was made to persuade us that some further time was required to make a submission on account of the fact that the case was listed today only for "directions".

This was not a request made at the threshold. To say the least, it was inappropriate and we have thus examined the records and heard learned counsel for the parties.

Another aspect which has pained at least one of us (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.) is that to circumvent the proceedings in the present matter an endeavour was made to contend that in the matter before the High Court in the same proceedings at some stage, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. was a member of the Bench. This matter and connected matters have been heard by a Bench of which Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. has been a member on numerous occasions before this Court and no such request was made.

This conduct amounts to subverting the process before this Court and is thus contemptuous. We strongly condemn the same though dissuade ourselves from taking any further action in the matter. The objective is to send a signal to the litigants that such endeavours will not be tolerated. It is an endeavour made by a public body - the Corporation and thus presumably at the instructions of the Commissioner of the Corporation who is an officer.

We were inclined to send this order to the supervising authority but at this stage we are informed by the instructing counsel that it is not made at the behest of the officer or anyone under him. Thus, the matter becomes Curiouser & Curiouser! About such endeavour, the least said, the better.

We close the proceedings in terms aforesaid.