IN THE HIGH CQURT OF DELHI AT MEW DELHI W\P. (C) No.5492/2004 Sudhir Chandra jain ...Petitioner through Mr. Sanjayjain, Adv. Versus State of Haryana and Anr. ...Respondents through Mr. Manish Bishnoi, Adv. Date of decision: January 20, 2006 CORAM: HON'BLE xMR. JUSTICE WKPvAMAJIT SEN 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? ^ 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported y ^ in the Digest? 4 VIKRAMAilT SEN. 1. (Orall 1. Briefly stated, the annal of this htigation is that a Suit for Possession and Damages had been filed by the Respondent No.l in the Civil Court:. It appears that the Pubhc Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter refen'ed to as the 'PP AcP) had been made applicable to these premises in 1997. The contention of learned counsel for the Respondent is that for this reason the Suit for Possession and Damages had WPfC)No.5492of2004 Page 1 of 6 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:21.08.2023 12:03 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified been withdrawn. It is contended that ieave to agitate the question of damages had been left open. To ascertain whether leave was reserved, 1 have perused the Order whereby that CiviJ Suit was permitted to be withdrawn on 5.8.1999 which reads as fohows:- In the present suir an application had been moved on behalf of the plaintiff U/s 151CPC on 15.3.99 tor withdrawal of the suit. In the present application it has been stated that the plainritf do not want to pursue the suit and the same may be chsmissed as withdrawn. Proxy Cl. for the plaintilf has stated that the representative of the plainti.nf Sh. Jyoti Maiwah also wants to withdraw the present suit and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. Sh. Jyoti Marwah also made his statement in this regard. in view of the above set of facts, the present application of the plaintiff is allowed and the present suit is dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed. Let file be consigned to record room. The inescapable consequence of this Order was that the claim for mesne profits stood abandoned, it is also possible to contend that even the clai'n tor possession had stood abandoned since liberty on ttiis question had not been reserved. Fortunately. 2, Page 2 of 6 WP(C)No.5492 of 2004 the second issue does not anse since the proceedings under the P.P. Act eventually culminated in eviction orders being passed against the present Petitioner. Against these eviction orders he unsuccessfuily filed an Appeal before the Additional District Judge, and eventually filed a Writ Petition m this Court when the Appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel tor the Respondent contends that it is possible to claim damages/raesne profits even under the PP Act. If this is so, then these claims stand legally barred by virtue of Order 11 Rule 2 of the CPC. 3. 4. In the writ proceedings the following Order was passed by S.K. MahajamJ. : Undertaking given by the petitioner is accepted. The petitioner shall hand over vacant possession of the land, mentioned in the petition, to respondent No,2 on or before 31 December, 2002 and will not sublet, assign or part with possession of the same to any other person. The petitioner wiu also pay to respondent No.2. damages @ Rs. 2,000/- per month from 14“ Apnl, 19P9 till the date of vacating the premises by him. The arrears of damages from the date of the order of eviction till 31^* March, 2002 be paid within two months from the date of this order. The future damages will be paid every month WP{C) No.5492 of 2004 Page 3 of 6 I \t) in advance by the 15^ day of each month, in case, the arrears are not paid within the time granted by this court or the current arrears are not paid within the time given by the court, the respondent will be at liberty to execute the order of e\action. With these observations, the petition is d-ismissed as withdrawn. The order of eviction, suDjecl to the aforesaid will not be executed till 31/" December, 2002. Petitioner shall remain bound by the undertaiong gjven to the court today. 5. Till the time of the liling of the Writ Petition the claim which has now been raised in the impugned Show Cause Notice had not been ventilated. During the pendency of the proceedings under the PP Act damages has been paid as per Court Orders. The matter, therefore, stood concluded, even so far as the claim for damages was concerned, on the Petitioner paying a sum of Rs.2,0()0/- per month. If it was open to the Respondent to keep alive claims of damages for any pnor period that ought to have been clearly stated and reserved when the Writ Petition was being disposed of in terms of the compromise. The Petitioner has vacated the premises in compliance with his obligations under the compromise. He cannot now be faced with a claim for WP(C)No.5492 of 2004 Page 4 of 6 i \\ damages for the period 1989-99. 6. Learned counsei for the Respondent has relied on Special Director vs. Mohd. Ghnlam Ghonse, (2084) 3 SCC 440. In that case the Supreme Court had not approved of the passing of a three word Order which had wide ramifications and results. Those Order were - "Rule. Status quo." Tins decision is not relevant for the present purposes since on the ahove analysis it is palpably clear that there is no legal foundation for even the issuance of the vexatious Show Cause Notice, Learned counsel for the Respondent has also relied on Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs, Ramesh Kumar Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 327, What the Conrt was dealing wth in that case was a finding by the Writ Court of the existence of a relationship of a landlord and tenant, and consequently directing resort to eviction proceedings. The contention of the Board that there was no tenancy had, therefore, been settled by the High Court at the Show Cause Notice staue. The situation before tMs Court hi w these proceedings is altogether different in that three Orders have been passed - firstly of the Civil Court, secondly of the Authority/Court under the PP Act and tlurdly of the Writ Court, 7, The impugned Show Cause Notice is devoid of all merits. It WP(C) No.5492 of 2004 Page 5 of 6 has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the wnt powers are so wide as to enable the Court to reach out and remove any injustice wherever it may be found. The claim tor damages now raised flies in the face of the withdrawal of the suit for possession and mesne profits; of the tailure to claim damages/mesne profits in the PP Act proceedings: amd most significantly of the compromise recorded m Court and tiiiiy complied with by the Petitioner. The claim is therefore mala tide The Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs,3,00U/- January 20, 2006 ( VIKRAMAJIT SEN) JUDGE tp WP(C) No.5492 of 2004 Page 6 of 6