Mrs. Meera Dhingra vs Mr. Deepak Kapoor and Others

Manmohan Singh, J.—By this order I shall dispose of 4 applications being (a) I.A. No. 7288/07 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, (b) I.A. No. 13461/07 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the ex parte order, (c) I.A. No. 587/08 u/s 151 CPC and (d) I.A. No. 14830/08 u/s 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff.

I.A. Nos. 7288/07 & I.A. No. 13461/07

The application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 has been filed by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants from selling, disposing or alienating in any manner whatsoever the property situated at A-53, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. An ex parte ad interim order in this application was passed on 12th July 2007 directing the parties to maintain the status quo of title and possession of the above mentioned property.

Another application being I.A. No. 13461/07 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC has been filed by the defendant for vacation of the ex parte ad interim order, inter alia, on various pleas that the plaintiff has made false and misleading statements in relation to material particulars in the suit as well as concealed various material facts, the details of which are given in Paras 2 and 3 of the said application. Therefore, the interim application is a gross abuse of the process of law.

However, learned Counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 states that defendants have no intention to sell, dispose or alienate the property situate at A-53, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi during the pendency of the suit. It is admitted by defendant No. 1 that the said property is let out to Dr. Stephen Dreyer as per lease deed dated 21st April, 2005 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1 lakh.

In view of the statement made by learned Counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2, it is directed that without prejudice to the rights and contentions, the parties may raise their respective pleas at the appropriate time. The ex parte ad interim injunction passed by this Court on 12th July, 2007 shall continue till the pendency of the suit. Both the applications are disposed of accordingly.

I.A. Nos. 587/08 & 14830/08

These two applications have been filed by the plaintiff praying for deposit of rent by the tenant Dr. Stephen Dreyer for the suit property No. A-53, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in this Court in the form of Fixed Deposit till the final disposal of the suit.

It is stated in the application that the rent for the suit property has become due in December, 2007 from the tenant Dr. Stephen Dryer. The plaintiff vide letter dated 13th July, 2007 had informed the tenant about the pendency of the present proceedings coupled with the reminder dated 26th November, 2007 requesting him not to release the rent in the name of defendant No. 1 as it will be prejudicial to the interest of the estate of the deceased in case any one party to the suit property is allowed to appropriate the rent of the said property.

In the other application being I.A. No. 14830/08, it is stated that vide order dated 20th May, 2008 this Court has directed the tenant Dr. Stephen Dryer to deposit the bi-annual rent payable in the month of June, 2008 in respect of the suit property with the Registrar of this Court on or before 4th July, 2008. The contention of the plaintiff is that the rent of the suit property has become due in December, 2008 from the said tenant. In consonance with the said order, the tenant Dr. Stephen Dryer has deposited a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs towards the rental for six months period.

Besides this, the plaintiff has stated that the rental for the subsequent six months also became due. The prayer in this application is also for direction for deposit of rent for the suit property by the tenant be issued that the sum which became due be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit till the final decision of the suit. Another prayer was made to the effect that the tenant should be directed to file the lease deed pertaining to the said property.

The said lease deed dated 21st April, 2005 has already been filed by defendant No. 1 on 4th February, 2009 which shows that the lease deed was executed between the parents of the plaintiff and Dr. Stephen Dryer being lessee to hold the demised premises for a term of four years commencing from 1st July 2005 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1 lakh. Accordingly the lease deed will be expiring on 30th June, 2009 and in view thereof, without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties as per order dated 20th May, 2008 the tenant is directed to deposit the bi-annual rent payable till 30th June, 2009 in respect of the suit property with the Registrar General of this Court on or before 20th April, 2009 alongwith arrears, if any. These applications which have the similar prayer have been opposed by the defendants No. 1 and 2 on various grounds. In fact the said defendants have taken the same pleas which have been taken in the written statement. However, in reply to IA No. 587/2008 the said defendant No. 1 has in para 4 of the preliminary objections has made the following statement:

That the answering defendant is ready and willing to open a fixed deposit account and shall deposit the entire rent in the said account to prevent loss of interest and undertakes not to use the said amount for his personal use till the decision of the case/further directions of this Hon''ble Court and shall also furnish any security to the satisfaction of this Hon''ble Court.

It is pertinent to mention here that the lease deed in question will be expiring on 30th June, 2009 and in view thereof without going to the merit of the case and also without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the earlier order passed by this Court on 20th May, 2008 shall continue and the defendants/tenants are directed to deposit the rent payable till the month of June, 2009 in respect of the property in question with the Registrar General of this Court on or before 20th June, 2009 along with arrears, if any.

The amount deposited by the tenant shall be kept in the FDR initially for a period of one year which shall be renewed from time to time as per directions of this Court.

Since this lease deed is expiring on 30th June, 2009, the parties are at liberty to make appropriate application in case of change of circumstances or any other arrangement is made in respect of the property in question, it shall be decided by the court as per merits of the case. These applications are disposed of accordingly.

List this matter on 30th April, 2009 along with the other cases which were ordered to be transferred from the District court vide order dated 13th March 2009 for further proceedings.

A copy of this order be given dasti to learned Counsel for both the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.