IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RC. REV. No.75/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 SMT. JAI SHREE LALLA Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate....Petitioner VERSUS SHRI HARBANS SINGH Through: Mr. O.P. Golabani, Advocate.... Respondent CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.2609/2014 (condonation of delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of seven days in re-filing the petition is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. RC. REV. No.75/2014 2. The petitioner/landlady by this petition impugns the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 30.8.2013 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/landlady for withdrawing her statement made to the court for disposing of the eviction petition as compromised and also for withdrawing the jointly signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Ex.P-1 dated 19.12.2011 on the basis of which the parties had recorded their statements in court for disposing of the eviction petition as compromised. By the impugned order, in view of the agreed MOU and the settlement recorded in the court on 19.12.2011, the Additional Rent Controller has disposed of the bonafide
necessity eviction petition as compromised under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in terms of the MOU dated 19.12.2011, Ex.P1. 3. Before I turn to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to state that the petitioner/landlady does not dispute that she is a signatory to the MOU dated 19.12.2011. This MOU is signed on each page and is of three pages. Petitioner/landlady also does not dispute that she appeared in the court and got her statement recorded that she has signed the MOU and that she has amicably settled the dispute with the respondent/tenant. It is also not the case of petitioner/landlady that she was in any manner misled by her Advocate or that there was any collusion between her Advocate and the respondent/tenant and his Advocate. The only ground which was given for withdrawing from the agreed compromise was that the petitioner/landlady was under a misunderstanding. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner/landlady filed a bonafide necessity eviction petition and during the pendency of the petition, parties to the petition entered into the MOU dated 19.12.2011, Ex.P1, by which petitioner/landlady was to get a sum of Rs.3.5 lacs from the respondent/tenant and consequently all the disputes between the parties were to be settled accordingly and the eviction petition be withdrawn. Under the MOU, an amount of Rs.1 lakh in cash was to be paid on or before 20.1.2012 subject to the petitioner/landlady producing original title deeds of the suit property and the balance amount of Rs.2.5 lacs was to be paid within four months from the date of entering into of the MOU. This MOU was brought to the court and accordingly court recorded statements of both the parties and also passed an order with respect to recording of the statements. The statements recorded of the parties and the order with respect to recording of statements reads as under:- STATEMENT OF PETITIONER SMT. JAISHREE LALLA, W/O. MOHD EKRAM, R/O. D-54, SECTOR 15, NOIDA, U.P. ON SA I am petitioner in the present case. I have amicably settled the dispute with the respondent. The terms of settlement are contained in memorandum of understanding Ex.P-1. I am bound by my statement/understanding given in memorandum of understanding Ex.P-1. I will withdraw the eviction petition in terms of memorandum of understanding Ex.P-1. STATEMENT OF RESPONDNET HARBANS SINGH, R/O. FLAT NO.L- I/190B, FIRST FLOOR, LIG, DDA FLATS, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI
ON SA I am respondent in the present case. I have amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner. The terms of settlement are contained in memorandum of understanding Ex.P-1. I am bound by my statement/understanding given in memorandum of understanding Ex.P-1. I have no objection if the permitted to withdraw the present petition in terms of memorandum of understanding Ex.P-1. Order dated 19.12.2011 Pr: Petitioner with counsel Mr. N.K. Sharma Respondent with counsel Mr. O.P. Gulabani. Both parties stated that matter has been amicably settled. Original memorandum of understanding placed on record. Both parties stated that they are willing to give their statement. Let the statement of petitioner as well as respondent be recorded. SCJ CUM RC (SOUTH) Saket Courts/New Delhi/19.12.11 At this stage- statement of petitioner as well as respondent have been recorded separately. I have seen their statements. List for withdrawal of the eviction petition on 13.01.12. SCJ CUM RC (SOUTH) Saket Courts/New Delhi/19.12.11 5. Since the case was adjourned to 13.1.2012, the petitioner/landlady, it seems in the meanwhile had a change of heart and wanted to recant from the agreed settlement/mou dated 19.12.2011 and the statement recorded on 19.12.2011. The application under Section 151 CPC which was hence filed by the petitioner/landlady, but the same was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller vide a detailed judgment dated 27.8.2012 by giving inter alia the following reasoning:- I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the entire material available on record. Perusal of record shows that the statement of petitioner and respondent was recorded in the Court on19012.2011. The petitioner give her statement on oath in the court in the presence of her counsel. The petitioner fully understood the terms of settlement contained in Memorandum of Understanding Ex. P1 and undertook to remain bound by her statement/undertaking given in MOU Ex.P1. The petitioner has stated that she is graduate. The documents placed on record before this Court shows
that the petitioner in her own hand writing has written different letters / complaints to SHO P.S. Chitranjan Park on12.04.2011 and SHO P.S. G.K-I on12.04.2011 and 17.04.2011. Thus, the petitioner appears to be well versed in English who understand and signs in English. The petitioner signed the memorandum of Understanding dated 19.12.2011 and her statement in the Court after fully understanding the contents of the same in the presence of her counsels. The petitioner has not leveled any sort of allegation against her previous counsel. The petitioner has also not doubted about any sort of conspiracy, if any, played by her counsel with the respondent. In these circumstances, the factum of misunderstanding as stated in the application is found to be afterthought and without any basis. No party can be permitted to resile from the statement given in the court. The judicial proceedings have their own sanctity. The petitioner cannot be permitted to change her statement after giving the statement on oath in the court. The petitioner has nowhere stated in her application as to how she misunderstood the contents of MOU dated 19012.2011 Ex.P1 when her counsel was himself present. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts into account, no grant of permission for withdrawal of statement/memorandum of Understanding Ex.P1 is made out. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Counsel for respondent submits that in view of dismissal of the application of the petitioner, the respondent does not want to pursue the application U/s 12 r/w section 2-B of The Contempt of Courts Act and the same may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn. Considered. In view of submissions and request made by counsel for respondent, the application U/S 12 r/w section 2-B The Contempt of Courts Act moved by respondent is dismissed as withdrawn being not pressed. Record reveals that both the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. Original Memorandum of Understanding duly signed by both the parties has already been placed on record. Statement of both the parties have also been recorded on 19.12.2011. I have gone through the statement of parties and MOU Ex.P1. Be put up for payment by respondent in terms of MOU Ex. P1 and withdrawal of petition by petitioner on 15.09.2012. (underlining added) 6. By the impugned order dated 30.8.2013, the Additional Rent Controller has referred to the earlier orders and has found no fault with the same and accordingly has disposed of the petition as compromised in terms of statements recorded on 19.12.2011 as also the signed MOU dated 19.12.2011 Ex.P-1.
7. I do not find any error whatsoever in the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller inasmuch as I refuse to believe the convenient statement that the petitioner/landlady had misunderstood the settlement/mou dated 19.12.2011 and the statements of the parties which were recorded in the court on the same date. On a query to the counsel for the petitioner/landlady, it is conceded that petitioner/landlady is not an uneducated lady but she is a graduate and knows English very well. In fact the aspect of petitioner/landlady being well conversant with English and being a graduate is also recorded in the order dated 27.08.2012. For whatever reasons, parties entered into a settlement. Once the settlement is a lawful settlement, and no pressure, coercion or undue influence upon the petitioner/landlady has been pleaded by her, petitioner/landlady cannot be allowed to back out of the MOU and her statement on oath given in Court merely on the ground of alleged misunderstanding. 8. Dismissed. SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 Sd/- VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J