Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Sumit Chandra, Advocate for the Plaintiffs;
  • Mr. Chetan Garg, Advocate for the Defendant/Applicant.
Judges
  • Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Sumit Chandra, Advocate for the Plaintiffs;
  • Mr. Chetan Garg, Advocate for the Defendant/Applicant.
Judges
  • Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant/defendant filed an application seeking a one-year extension from 30.04.2020 to hand over vacant possession of the property located at D-14, Narmada Apartments, Alaknanda, New Delhi, to Ms. Mona Singh, pursuant to an order dated 11.12.2019 in CS(OS) 121 of 2017 and Test Case No. 11 of 2017. The application was made in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which the applicant/defendant claimed made it difficult to vacate the premises by the original deadline. The plaintiffs, who are the sisters of the applicant/defendant, opposed the extension beyond 10 May 2020 but agreed to a short extension until that date. The decree mandated vacant possession by 30.04.2020, with damages of Rs. 1,00,000 per day for failure to vacate on time.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the applicant/defendant is entitled to an extension of one year from 30.04.2020 to vacate the property due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  2. Whether the order dated 11.12.2019 should be modified or altered to grant such an extension.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant/Defendant's Arguments

  • The COVID-19 pandemic has created exceptional circumstances making it very difficult for the applicant/defendant to vacate the property by 30.04.2020.
  • Requested a one-year extension to hand over vacant possession of the property.
  • Committed to vacate the premises by 10 May 2020 if the extension is limited to that date, and agreed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 per day as damages if he fails to do so.

Plaintiffs' Arguments

  • The matter was settled by a settlement deed dated 11.12.2019, and the decree was passed accordingly.
  • The property was to be vacated by 30.04.2020, failing which a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 per day would apply.
  • The plaintiffs, being the sisters of the applicant/defendant, were willing to extend the deadline only until 10 May 2020, acknowledging the lockdown situation.
  • No objection was raised to the applicant/defendant vacating by 10 May 2020; beyond that date, damages as per the settlement would apply.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the submissions of both parties in light of the settlement deed and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic. While the applicant/defendant sought a one-year extension, the plaintiffs agreed only to a short extension until 10 May 2020. The court balanced these positions and directed the applicant/defendant to vacate the property on or before 10 May 2020. It further upheld the agreed damages clause of Rs. 1,00,000 per day in case of failure to vacate by that date. The court’s reasoning reflects an attempt to accommodate pandemic-related difficulties without unduly prejudicing the plaintiffs’ rights under the original settlement and decree.

Holding and Implications

The application for a one-year extension to vacate the property is denied. Instead, the court granted a limited extension until 10 May 2020 for the applicant/defendant to vacate the premises.

If the applicant/defendant fails to vacate by 10 May 2020, he shall be liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000 per day as damages to the plaintiffs, in accordance with the settlement deed and decree.

This decision directly resolves the parties’ dispute concerning the possession deadline without setting a broader precedent.

Show full summary ...

    Mona Singh v. Amit Singh

    1. The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.

    I.A. No. 3705/2020

    2. Issue notice. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs who appears on advance notice accepts notice.

    3. The applicant/defendant has moved the present application with the following prayers:

    a) Grant an extension of 1 year to the applicant, effective from 30.04.2020, to handover vacant possession of the property being D-14, Narmada Apartments, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019, to Ms.Mona Singh, in terms of the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CS(OS) 121 of 2017 and Test Case No. 11 of 2017, in view of the prevailing COVID-19 outbreak in the country;

    b) Consequently, modify/alter the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CS (OS) 121 of 2017 & Test case No. 11 of 2017, to the extent of aforesaid prayer (a).

    4. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/defendant that due to the present pandemic situation the applicant/defendant is finding very difficult to move out of the present house in which he is residing. He further submits that the applicant/defendant be given time of one year to shift from the property in question.

    5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs that the matter was settled between the parties vide settlement deed dated 11.12.2019 and on the basis of the settlement the decree was passed. He further submits that as per the decree passed, the property in question is to be vacated on 30.04.2020 and in case the applicant/defendant failed to do so, he shall be liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- per day as damages. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the sisters of the applicant/defendant and on instructions, he submits that the plaintiffs are ready to increase the time by 10 days as the lockdown is going to be over by 03.05.2020. The counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the plaintiffs have no objection if the applicant/defendant vacates the premises in question by 10 of May 2020. He further submits that in case the applicant/defendant fails to vacate the premises in question by 10 of May 2020, then he should be liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- per day as damages as had been agreed upon between the parties.

    6. The counsel for the applicant/defendant submits that the applicant/defendant would positively vacate the premises on or before 10 of May, 2020 and if he fails to do so, he will pay Rs. 1,00,000/- per day as damages as has been agreed upon vide settlement deed dated 11.12.2019.

    7. In view of the submissions of the counsels for the parties, the applicant/defendant/JD shall vacate the premises in question on or before 10 of May, 2020 and in case he fails to do so, in that circumstance, he shall be liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- per day as damages to the plaintiffs/DH. With these observations, the application is disposed of.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Mona Singh v. Amit Singh
    (Apr 17, 2020)