Uoi vs Satish Kumar Mehta (D) Thr. Lrs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 628 OF 2017 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) NO. 37467/2012)

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SATISH KUMAR MEHTA (D) THR. LRS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants are before this Court aggrieved by

the judgment dated 6.8.2012 in RFA(OS) No.107/2009

and Cross Objections C.M. No.472/2010. The appeal

was filed by the appellants herein aggrieved by the

judgment dated 23.09.2009 in Civil Suit (OS)

No.264/2004. That suit was filed by the respondent

challenging the demand for an amount of

Rs.42,11,604/- towards misuser charges, for having

used the residential property for non-residential

purposes. No doubt, such misuse was by a sub-tenant, Signature Not Verified who was evicted by the respondent subsequently on Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2017.01.18 17:10:04 IST Reason: account of violation of the lease conditions. The

1 learned Single Judge decreed the suit. The decretal

portion reads as follows:

“...Accordingly, the demand raised in the letter dated 17th December 2003 of the Defendants towards misuser charges payable by the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property would stand modified as under:

(i) Rs.10,31,630/- + Rs.10,316/- towards misuser charges for the first floor (ii) Rs.55,866/- for the misuse of the ground floor the plaintiff. (iii) Other sums demanded in the letter dated 17 th December 2003 i.e. the sums under Sl. Nos.1 to 3, Ground Rent under Head “A”, and Misuse Charges at Ground Floor under Head “B” to the extent admitted by the plaintiff in para 25 of the plaint (and in para 21 of his affidavit dated 15th September 2006).

The above sums will be paid by the Plaintiff together with simple interest at 10% p.a. from 1st January 2004 till the date of payment. The interest rate is what is indicated in the calculations given by the Plaintiff himself. Since the demand raised is as of 17th December 2003, the interest payable will be calculated for the period 1st January 2004 till date of actual payment. Against the sum so payable, the Plaintiff is entitled to adjust the amount of Rs.10 lakhs deposited in this Court together with the interest accrued thereon, and after payment of the balance amount within a period of four weeks, the Plaintiff is entitled to have the breaches regularised.”

3. The appellants pursued the matter before the

Division Bench in the First Appeal. The respondent

filed a cross objection. It was the main contention

of the appellants that having regard to the admitted

misuse, the respondent was liable to pay the demand,

as raised by the appellants. On the contrary, the

respondent contended that even assuming that the

respondent was liable to pay the misuser charges it

2 could in no way exceed the rent he had already

received, in terms of the Circular dated 31.03.1976.

We find it difficult to appreciate the contention

raised by the respondent. That circular only states

that having regard to the peculiar facts of each

case, in consultation with the Ministry of Works and

Housing and Finance and taking note of the inability

on the part of the lessee, an appropriate order would

be passed limiting it to the income of the lessee.

4. Be that as it may, on going through the plaint,

we find that in unequivocal terms, the

respondent/plaintiff had averred in the plaint that

the charges cannot exceed Rs.10,31,630/-.

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellants extensively and Mr. Jayant Bhushan,

learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents

and going through the pleadings we find that in any

case the respondent cannot go back on what he had

agreed towards the payment of misuse charges, in the

suit filed by him. Though Mr. Bhushan, learned

senior counsel invited our attention to a decision of

this Court in D.D.A. v. Ram Prakash, reported in

(2011) 4 SCC 180, we do not think that the said

decision would be of any help to the respondents.

What the Court held in the said case was that what

would be the reasonable time would depend upon the

facts and circumstances of each case. In the present

3 case, action had already been initiated in 1978 for

the misuse of the premises.

6. Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel, made a

vehement submission that the offer to pay an amount

of Rs.10,31,630/- was an alternative submission

recorded by the Division Bench in the impugned

judgment. We have gone through the plaint. We find

it difficult to appreciate that it was an alternative

submission. The clear case of the

respondent/plaintiff was that the amount in any case,

cannot exceed Rs.10,31,630/-.

7. Though, normally the matter should have been

remanded for fresh consideration, having regard to

the fact that the litigation has been pending for

long and since it is in the interest of parties on

both the sides to give a quietus to the dispute,

without relegating the parties for another round of

litigation this appeal is partly allowed by restoring

the decree passed by the learned Single Judge on the

original side.

8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondents submits that the amount, as decreed by

the learned Single Judge on the original side have

already been paid. Needless to mention that the

amount paid will be duly adjusted towards the

decreetal amount.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

4

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

.......................J. [A.M. KHANWILKAR] NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 10, 2017.

5

ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 37467/2012

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/08/2012 in RFA No. 107/2009, 06/08/2012 & CM No. 472/2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

SATISH KUMAR MEHTA (D) THR. LRS. RESPONDENT(S)

(with interim relief and office report) (For Final Disposal)

Date : 10/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

For Petitioner(s) Mr. R.K. Rathore,Adv.

Mr. R.R. Rajesh,Adv.

Ms. Jyotika Kalra,Adv.

Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav,Adv. Mr. M.K. Maroria,Adv.

Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv.

Mr. Pravin Bahadur,Adv.

Ms. Mallika Joshi,Adv.

Mr. Amit Agarwal,Adv.

Mr. Rajan Narain,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeal is partly allowed, in terms of the signed judgment.

(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed 'Non-Reportable' Judgment is placed on the file)

6