Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08.04.2025
NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal and Mr. Jalad Agrawal, Advs
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an Application filed by the Applicant, who is not a party to the present Petition, seeking clarification of order dated 09.04.2024.
2. Mr. Sindhwani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, seeks and is granted permission to withdraw the present Application.
3. The present Application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. CM.APPL. 39132/2024[Clarification of order dated 03.04.2024]
4. This is an Application filed by the Applicant, who is not a party to the present Petition, seeking clarification of order dated 03.04.2024.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that this Application was already adjudicated upon by this Court on the last date of hearing.
6. This Court had on 27.02.2025 passed the following directions:
7. It is not disputed by the learned Senior Counsel that the judgment dated 03.04.2024 has not been challenged by the Applicant despite the lapse of almost one year. It is also not disputed that the Applicant has filed objections before the learned Executing Court in support of its contentions, which are being adjudicated upon.
8. Given what is stated above and in view of the order that this Court proposes to pass today in the Petition, this Court does not deem it appropriate to pass any further orders on this Application.
9. The Application is accrodingly disposed off.
10. The Petitioners are physically present in the Court today.
11. This Court by its order dated 06.02.2025 issued Notice to the Petitioners to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the Petitioners. The Petitioners have since filed a Reply to the show cause notice dated 19.02.2025 [hereinafter referred to as “Reply”] and have been present before the Court on each date of hearing.
12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions, submits that the Petitioners have utmost regard for the majesty of the Court and have not deliberately or wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by the Court. 12.[1] It is further stated in the Reply filed by the Petitioners that prior to the death of husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, the case was being handled by the said late Sh. Narender Kumar Jain without sharing much information with the Petitioners. It is contended that the Petitioners were "not much aware" about the pendency of the matter including the reason as to why the case was filed and that they were only aware to the extent that the tenanted premises was in actual use and occupation of Sh. Arjun Jain who was the nephew of the late Sh. Narendra Kumar Jain.
13. It is further stated that as per the legal advice and information of the present case, given to the Petitioners at the time when the Petition was filed, was that despite not being in possession of the tenanted premises, in view of the fact that the Impugned Order has given a finding that possession of the tenanted premises is to be delivered by late Sh. Narender Kumar Jain, the present case was filed. It is apposite to extract paragraph 6 of the Reply in this behalf which is set out below:
14. The Reply further states that after the order dated 03.04.2024 was passed by this Court, and the payment of user charges was a dispute between Sh. Arjun Jain and the landlord – the Respondent and the said Sh. Arjun Jain had assured the Petitioners that appropriate measures would be undertaken by him in regard to the tenanted premises and the fact that all things concerning the possession of the tenanted premises shall be looked into by him alone. It is also apposite to extract paragraph 7 of the Reply in this behalf below:
Jain so as to see how the said orders with respect to use and occupation charges as directed, are to be complied. In turn Mr. Arjun Jain has assured the deponent about the appropriate measures to be done by him in this regard and she need not worry in this concern as she being not in possession of the tenanted premises all the things in concerning to possession shall be looked by him only. He has further assured that the implication of non-payment to use and occupation charges entails the operation of default clause in terms of order dated 3.4.2024 which in any case is a dispute between him and the landlord i.e. respondent herein. In view of close family relation with said Sh. Arjun Jain, the deponent remained under bonafide assurances as given by him and as per the order of this Court appeared in the matter on 06/02/2025.” [Emphasis supplied]
15. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions, also submits that the payments in the sum of Rs.91,73,500/- [Rs. 73,41,500 + Rs. 18,32,000/have already been deposited in the Court.
16. In view of what has been set out above by the Petitioners and given the unconditional apology of the Petitioners, this Court deems it apposite to discharge the notice for show cause issued against the Petitioners.
17. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions from the Petitioners, seeks unconditional leave to withdraw the present Petition. The Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. All pending Applications stand closed.
18. The amounts deposited by the Petitioners as user and occupation charges in pursuance of order dated 03.04.2024 passed by this Court, including any interest accrued thereon, shall be released to Respondent No.1 by the Registry of this Court.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J APRIL 8, 2025/r/ ha