RFA 163/2008 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 163/2008 Date of Decision: 1st May, 2008 # PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Appellant ! Through: Mr. S. S. Katyal and Mr. Rajesh Katyal, Advs. with Mr. K.L. Jagga, AGM of appellant. versus $ AMRIT KAUR ..... Respondent ^ Through: Mr. Vipin Nandwani, Adv. alongwith respondent in person. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Not necessary. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Not necessary. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Not necessary. J U D G M E N T Per Thakur, J(oral) This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 39/2006/2005 filed by the plaintiff-respondent for possession of a commercial premises comprising the basement, ground floor and mezzanine with an approximate covered area of 1940 Sq. ft., situated at Community Centre, Mayapuri, Phase-I, New Delhi. The appellant, it appears, has been running one of its branches from the said premises. Since the contractual RFA 163/2008 Page 2 of 4 period of tenancy agreed between the parties had expired, the plaintiff- respondent appears to have filed the suit mentioned above for vacation of the premises upon failure of the tenant occupant to vacate the same. That same was decreed by judgment and order dated 18.03.2008 passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff with a direction holding the plaintiff entitled to recovery of compensation for use and occupation of the premises @ Rs.70,000/-(rupees seventy thousand) per month for the period from 1st October, 2004 onwards till the date the premises is vacated by the bank. The present appeal seeks to assail the correctness of the said decree as already indicated earlier. 2. When the matter came up before us on 23rd April, 2008 for admission, learned counsel for the parties made a joint request for a short adjournment to enable them to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. The parties have today appeared to report settlement mutually arrived at between them. Mr. K.L. Jagga, Assistant General Manager of the appellant-bank has made a statement which has been separately recorded by us, inter alia, stating that the bank would be ready and willing to vacate the premises, if time till 31st December, 2009 is granted to it for that purpose. He further stated that the bank would be ready to pay compensation for use and occupation of the premises @ Rs.70,000/- per month for the entire period commencing 1st October, 2004 till 31st December, 2009 or earlier when the premises is vacated. 3. That prayer is acceptable to Mr. Nandwani, counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent who has no objection to the grant of time subject to the condition that the appellate-bank pays the arrears recoverable RFA 163/2008 Page 3 of 4 from it within the time stipulated by this Court and continues to pay the current user charges at the rate mentioned above till the date the premises is vacated. 4. In the circumstances, therefore, it is unnecessary for us to examine the grounds of challenge set out in the memo of appeal, for the parties are agreeable to the arrangement that has been worked out between them under which all that needs to be done is to grant time to the appellant to vacate the premises by the 31st December, 2009 on the conditions referred to earlier. We accordingly affirm the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, dismiss this appeal and grant time to appellant to vacate the premises by the 31st December, 2009 subject to the following conditions: 1. The appellant pays/deposits in the account of plaintiff- respondent arrears of compensation for use and occupation of the premises, calculated @ Rs.70,000/- per month less the amount already paid and the TDS, if any, deducted. The service tax liability, if any, shall, in relation to the premises, be discharged by the respondent. The amount of arrears shall be calculated and deposited within 4 weeks. The amount of costs awarded by the Trial Court shall also be deposited in the account of the respondent within same period. 2. The bank pays on a regular basis current user charges @ Rs.70,000/- per month less TDS by the 10th of every calendar month. In the event of 2 defaults in payment of the said charges the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent RFA 163/2008 Page 4 of 4 shall become executable forthwith. 3. In the event of the failure of the bank to vacate the premises voluntarily by 31st December, 2009, in keeping with the undertaking given in the statement made by the Assistant General Manager of the appellant-bank, the decree holder shall be free to execute the decree apart from instituting appropriate proceedings for disobedience/contempt in accordance with law 5. No costs. 6. Dasti. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. MAY 01, 2008 mk