Swatanter Kumar, J.@mdashCM Nos. 6450/06, 735/06, 209/06, 323/06, 17185/05 and 278/06 are the applications u/s 5 of the Limitation Act
for condensation of delay of 12 to 15 days in filing the present appeals.
2. For the reasons stated in these applications which are supported by affidavits as well as the fact that there is no opposition, we allow these
applications. Delay of 12 to 15 days in filing the present appeals is condoned. The CMs are disposed of accordingly with the direction that the
appeals will be heard on merits.
3. CM Nos. 6451/06 in RFA 301/06, 279/06 in RFA 7/06, 17186/05 in RFA 842/05, and CM 324/06 in RFA 14/06 are the CMs u/s 149 of
the CPC for enlargement of time to pay the court fee.
4. For the reasons stated in the applications, we allow these applications and permit the applicants to make good the deficiency in payment of
court fee. Let the deficiency be made good within one week from today.
5. CMs are accordingly disposed of.
6. Vide this order we will dispose of the above six appeals as common controversy, legal issue arise for determination by the Court in these
appeals based on somewhat similar facts.
7. CMDE I.K. Malhotra and his wife, the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the defendants. The plaintiffs
are owners cum landlords of Flat Nos. B-203, B-205, 207, Ansal Chamber-I, 3, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. These premises had been
rented out by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 1 for commercial purpose at a monthly rent of Rs. 19,250/- and 14,000/- (separately for each of the
remaining two flats) vide lease deed dated 16.9.98 w.e.f. 14.5.98. In terms of the lease deed, the rent was even increased but thereafter certain
disputes arose between the parties. As per the case pleaded by the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 had chosen to hand over the possession by
surrendering the tenancy but subsequently inducted defendant No. 2 into the premises which was an unauthorised and illegal occupant. Both the
defendants have not paid rent for a considerable time i.e from 1.6.01. Compelled with these circumstances, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of
possession and for mesne profits in relation to each of the three flats. The suit was contested by the defendants by raising preliminary objections as
well as on merits. It was stated that the lease deed between the parties had not been registered. No notice as contemplated u/s 106 of the Transfer
of Property Act was served by the plaintiff on the defendants and defendant No. 2 was in occupation in its own right. These suits were decreed by
the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi vide judgment and decree dated 25.7.05 wherein he had passed the decree for possession against
defendant No. 1 and dismissed the same against defendant No. 2. For recovery of mesne profits the suit was decreed against both the defendants.
8. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 have filed their own appeals that is how
these six RFAs have been listed for hearing before the Court.
9. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties suggested that it will be in the interest of the parties to amicably settle
these matters rather than appeals being considered on merits of the issues raised in the appeals. In furtherance to this intention of the parties, the
cases were adjourned by the Court for permitting the parties to consider the modalities of a compromise settling all disputes arising in all the
appeals. When the matters were taken up for hearing on 5.4.06, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties after taking instructions from their
respective clients and particularly the respondent No. 2 who was present in Court stated that the disputes between the parties have been amicably
settled and the agreed terms and conditions as jointly stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at the Bar are as under:
(a) The decree under appeal passed by the learned Trial Court for possession against defendant No. 1, appellant M/s Usha (India) Ltd be set
aside.
(b) The parties have agreed that the respondents in these appeals (owners/Lessers) will execute fresh lease deeds for a period of three years w.e.f.
the date of the order. The lease deed would be executed on the similar lines on which the lease deeds were earlier executed on 16.9.98.
(c) Appellant M/s Orfic Resorts Ltd. shall pay all the arrears of rent within three months from today. The entire arrears may either be paid in
installments or in lump-sum but within the period of three months from the date of the order. The rent shall be paid at the following agreed rates in
terms of the lease deed and which were lastly paid by the appellant to the respondents i.e. Rs. 19,250/- for one flat and Rs. 14,000/- per month
for each of the remaining two flats.
(d) The appellant M/s Orfic Resorts Ltd. in terms of the fresh lease deed would regularly pay the rent to the respondents. This term is essence of
the compromise and the appellants would abide by the same without fail.
(e) All the disputes between the parties stand settled in the above terms and the parties agreed to abide by these terms and pray that the decree of
the Trial Court be modified in the above terms and a decree be passed by this Court as per the above agreed terms and conditions. Having heard
the learned Counsel for the parties, we are also of the considered view that the above agreed terms and conditions are otherwise just, fair and
equitable and would meet the ends of justice. There is no legal impediment as to why the prayer of the parties be not accepted by the Court. This
would settle all the disputes between the parties and would also prevent unnecessary future ligation.
10. Consequently, we modify the decree of the Trial Court in the above terms and pass a decree on agreed terms and conditions as afore-noticed.
The parties would abide by the terms and conditions.
11. During the course of hearing, it was brought to our notice that in RFA Nos. 301/06, 7/06, 842/05, 14/06 the requisite advalorem court fee has
not been paid. We direct that the deficiency be now made good within one week. In the event deficiency in payment of court fee is not made
good, the registry would not supply the certified copy of this judgment to the appellants. As far as RFA 842/06 is concerned, the appellants have
made up the deficiency in payment of court fee as such no further orders need be passed in that case.
12. In view of our above discussion and the agreed terms and conditions as afore-noticed, the appeals are decreed in the above terms, while
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.