In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Reserve: 18.7.2008 Date of Order: 30.07.2008 CM(M) No. 823/2008 Chandermohan Sahdev ... Petitioner Through: Mr. P.C.Sen, Advocate Versus Arun Bhandari ... Respondent CM(M) No. 834/2008 Chandermohan Sahdev ... Petitioner Through: Mr. P.C.Sen, Advocate Versus Sangeeta Bhandari ... Respondent 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside orders dated 12.5.2008 and 30.5.2008 passed by the learned ADJ, Executing Court in execution petition. 2. The petitioner had suffered a decree of possession and payment of mesne profits/rent. The petitioner was living in J-503 Sainik Farms. He did not vacate the house neither paid the rent/mesne profits. The Decree Holder, owner of the premises had to file a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits and the suit was decreed. The possession was delivered only through the Court bailiffs, when the warrants of possession were issued. Thereafter, when the warrants of attachment were sent to the petitioner, he issued cheques for Rs.17,51,494/-, the due amount. Both the cheques got dis-honoured. Thereafter, again efforts were made to execute the decree. The petitioner promised to pay the decretal amount by way of installments of Rs.10,000/- p.m. but he did not pay the decretal amount even by installments. 3. The decree holder moved an application for execution of decree by arrest and civil imprisonment of judgment debtor. A show cause notice was issued and after considering the reply to show cause and document, the Executing Court vide order dated 14.2.2008 allowed the application and directed for issuance of warrants of arrest of Judgment Debtor. Judgment Debtor has not challenged the order dated 14.2.2008, but has only challenged subsequent directions for issuance of warrants of arrest on 12.5.2008 and 30.5.3008. 4. The plea of the petitioner that he has no means to pay the amount is belied by the documents filed by the petitioner. After the possession of Sainik Farms house was taken, the petitioner started living at A-203, Defence Colony. When the Decree Holder took warrants of attachment of movable assets of the petitioner at A-203, Defence Colony, he shifted from Defence Colony to some address at Okhla. The documents filed by the petitioner show that the petitioner had been taking treatment for his so-called ailments at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. This hospital is a five star hospital of Delhi where only rich or extra rich people can afford treatment. Poor persons or those who do not have means cannot even think of Apollo Hospital, where per day charges may run into lacs of rupees. The ailment about which he had been taking treatment from Apollo Hospital is Squamous Cell Carcinoma of soft palate with hypertension and allied problems. If a person can take treatment from Apollo Hospital, he cannot be considered to be poor in financial condition. The petitioner has filed treatment/admission documents of Apollo Hospital, he has not filed the bills of the hospital, which would have shown the actual financial condition of the petitioner. The list of properties filed by the petitioner before the trial Court also shows that the petitioner was still leading a luxurious life and maintaining a car. He has given value of his jewellery, personal car and household assets at Rs.8 lac. He invested Rs.1.25 lac in the mutual fund, he has 6,85,500 equity shares of Refco Appliances Ltd., 50,000 equity shares of Perfect Ice Pvt. Ltd., he stated that market value of these shares was zero, since these shares were unquoted. The assertions of the petitioner about his inability and poor financial condition were not believed by the trial Court. Even otherwise the order of the trial Court dated 14.2.2008 directing his arrest has not been challenged and only warrants of arrest have been challenged. 5. The Courts must make a distinction between those persons, who take loan for certain exigencies and later on express their inability to repay due to poor financial conditions but has bonafide intentions and those who are out to exploit others and had an intention to thrive on others and live life of riches at the cost of others. A man with poor financial condition if has bonafide intentions, would not live in a hired palatial house for which he has to pay huge rent. He would leave the house immediately if not in a position to pay rent and would shift to a house within his means. He won?t compel his landlord to get a decree of possession against him. The Courts cannot show mercy on those whose conduct is deceitful. A tenant who keeps retaining a big palatial house in his possession when he either has no intentions to pay the rent or has no capacity to pay the rent, is deceitful. Such a person does not deserve the sympathy of Court. 6. It is apparent that the petitioner was not acting with good faith and seems to have no intention to pay the decretal amount to the Decree Holder. Initially, he gave cheque to Decree Holder of decretal amount, which got dis-honoured. Later on when the execution was taken, he agreed to pay the decretal amount in installments, but did not pay. He also shifted from the place, where attachment was taken. It only shows that while the petitioner had been enjoying palatial house at premium places in Delhi, without making payment of the rent/user charges/mesne profits, he was evading the execution. The element of bad faith is apparent in this case. I find no reason to intervene in the order of the trial Court of issuance of warrants of arrest in pursuance of order, which has not been challenged. The petition is hereby dismissed. Sd./- July 30, 2008 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. .

Load more