Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2323 (DEL)

B. C. MEHTA v. AVIRAL KAUSHIK

2006-12-13

REKHA SHARMA

body2006
REKHA SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) LA. No. 11151/06 in O. M. P. 455/2005 this application has been taken off from the file of CCP No. 56/06 and is directed to be placed on the file of this case for disposal. ( 2 ) NOW the application in question. It is under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer that as an interim measure the possession of the suit property be delivered to the petitioner by appointing him as the court Receiver, besides the prayer that the respondent be sent to civil imprisonment and his bank account No. 0715538 with ABN Amro Bank, 15, barakhamba Road, New Delhi be attached. ( 3 ) THE averments made in the main petition which is under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 disclose that the petitioner, s. C. Mehta is the owner of the property No. B-7/107-A, situated at safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi, it was let out to the respondent for residential-cum-office purposes vide lease deed executed between the parties on 15. 2. 2003 initially at a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000 for a fixed period of 11 months i. e. , upto 15. 1. 2004. Thereafter, the lease period was extended and the rent was also increased. Those details are not being mentioned in this order as they are not relevant for the purpose of disposing of the present application. Suffice it to say that the respondent defaulted in making payment of monthly rent upon which the petitioner terminated the tenancy and since the lease agreement contained an arbitration clause being clause 17, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above pending reference and adjudication of the disputes by| the Arbitrator for which a separate petition being Arbitration Application no. 81/2006 under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed. ( 4 ) IN the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, this Court passed an ex-parte order on 13. 12. 2005 restraining the respondent from sub-letting or parting with the possession of the suit property and in the meanwhile, issued notice to him for 3. 4. 2006 the respondent entered appearance on the said date along with his counsel. It was noted by this Court in its order dated 3. 4. 12. 2005 restraining the respondent from sub-letting or parting with the possession of the suit property and in the meanwhile, issued notice to him for 3. 4. 2006 the respondent entered appearance on the said date along with his counsel. It was noted by this Court in its order dated 3. 4. 2006 that the respondent was continuing to occupy the suit property but was n6t paying the rent. The court observed that the respondent could not occupy the premises free of charge and, therefore, directed him to pay the arrears of rent up-to-date within a period of three weeks with a further direction to also pay future rent as per the agreement between the parties. Despite this order, no rent was paid. The respondent also failed to appear in the Court. As such, this court vide order dated 14. 3. 2006 issued bailable warrants against him for his appearance. This order was passed in Arbitration Application No. 81/06. Pursuant to the execution of bailable warrants, respondent appeared in court on 3. 4. 2006 along with his counsel and undertook to remain present in all subsequent bearings unless specifically exempted. Notwithstanding the undertaking the respondent again failed to appear in the Court which led to the filing of the contempt petition against him. A detailed order on the contempt petition bearing CCP No. 56/06 was passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice h. R. Malhotra on 31. 8. 2006 holding the respondent guilty of disobedience of the orders of the dated dated 3. 4. 2006. Consequently, it was ordered that at the first instance, the movable and immovable properties of the respondent be attached and the attached properties be sold, put to auction and out of the sale proceeds, the arrears of rent as ordered earlier be recovered. ( 5 ) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing was found in the bank account of the respondent and so no attachment could be effected. It is also submitted by the counsel that the premises are lying locked since April, 2006. ( 5 ) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing was found in the bank account of the respondent and so no attachment could be effected. It is also submitted by the counsel that the premises are lying locked since April, 2006. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the facts noticed above and looking into the conduct of the respondent, I am of the view that it is a fit case where the petitioner who himself is the owner of the premises in question is appointed as Court receiver to take possession of the premises till the matter is referred and disposed of by the Arbitrator. Accordingly, the petitioner is appointed as court Receiver to take possession of the premises bearing No. B-7/107-A, situated at Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi. In case the premises are found locked, the petitioner shall be at liberty to break open the locks of the same by taking assistance of the local police. In case any goods are lying in the premises, the Court Receiver shall make an inventory of the same in the presence of the local police and keep the same in his safe custody till further orders of the Court. The Court Receiver shall not in any way transfer, alienate or part with the possession of the property. The Receiver shall submit his report on or before the next date. Application stands disposed of.