Mohd Iqbal Ansari v. Rehan Alam

$~47 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CONT.CAS(C) 584/2017 MOHD IQBAL ANSARI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. M.K. Perwez, Adv.

versus REHAN ALAM ..... Respondent Through None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 21.08.2017 Petitioner alleges wilful disobedience of the purported undertaking dated 05.07.2017 and the order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the Trial Court, Karkardooma in CS No. 434/2017. Order dated 05.07.2017 is, as follows:- "Ld. Counsel for the defendant seeks further time to file WS. Allowed. The same be filed subject to Law of Limitation. At this stage, the defendant is willing to hand over the possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff. However, according to him no arrears of rent are due upon him. This fact has been controverter by the plaintiff.

Arguments on the application u/o 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC heard. The defendant fairly stated that he shall not create any third party interest in the suit shop bearing no. B-88, ground floor Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi nor would sub let, assign or part with its possession to any one in any manner whatsoever till the disposal of the present suit.

Separate statement of the defendant is recorded in this regard.

In view thereof, application u/o 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC is disposed off in terms of the said statement.

Put up this matter for filing of WS on 02.08.2017."

As to whether, the respondent has sub let, assign or part with its possession of the subject premises to anyone, despite having been queried specifically, ld. counsel for the petitioner is unable to answer. Suffice to say, there is not a single averment to that effect in the application. No assumptions or presumptions can be allowed to be drawn to that effect, in the absence of any such specific averment. On persistent asking, it appears, the applicant apprehends that the respondent is likely to sub let, assign or part with its possession shortly. This apprehension cannot be constituted to be violation of the above-said order.

As regards the order dated 02.08.2017, it reads as under:- "Written statement filed today. Copy supplied. It is agreed between the parties that the defendant shall hand over the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within this week and would also pay the due rent for the months of June and July, 2017 to the plaintiff.

Put up for compliance as well as filing of replication, if any, admission denial of documents and framing of issues on 14.08.2017."

A bare perusal of the above-said order only shows that this is an agreement between the parties and cannot be construed to be an undertaking given by the respondent to the Court nor any specific direction to that effect is given.

In view of the forgoing, no merits. Dismissed. A. K. CHAWLA, J AUGUST 21, 2017