Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 15-07-2019 in case of petitioner name Sir Sobha Singh And Sons Pvt. vs Shashi Mohan Kapur
| |

Landlord-Tenant Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds Eviction in Execution Proceedings

The case of Sir Sobha Singh And Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shashi Mohan Kapur is a significant ruling in landlord-tenant disputes, particularly regarding execution of consent decrees. The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s decision and restored the execution order passed by the trial court, directing the tenant to vacate the premises.

The dispute originated from a tenancy agreement dating back to 1959. The landlord, Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd., sought eviction of the tenant, Shashi Mohan Kapur, after serving a quit notice in 2009. The case was settled through a compromise decree in 2012, where the tenant agreed to vacate the property by May 31, 2016. However, despite multiple extensions, the tenant did not vacate, leading to execution proceedings.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Sir Sobha Singh And Sons Pvt. Ltd., was the landlord of a residential property in Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi. The respondent’s father, R.L. Kapur, was the original tenant from 1959. After his death in 2007, the respondent, Shashi Mohan Kapur, became the legal heir and continued residing in the property.

The landlord served a quit notice in 2004, but since the tenant did not vacate, another notice was issued in 2009. This led to a civil suit for eviction and mesne profits in the court of Additional District Judge (ADJ).

Compromise and Consent Decree

The parties reached a settlement, which was recorded by the trial court on June 1, 2012. The key terms of the compromise were:

  • The respondent (tenant) would vacate the premises on or before May 31, 2016.
  • The respondent would pay a monthly user charge of Rs. 5,000 from June 1, 2012, until handing over possession.
  • The respondent undertook not to sublet or create third-party rights in the property.

The trial court passed a consent decree based on these terms.

Non-Compliance and Execution Proceedings

When the respondent failed to vacate the premises by May 31, 2016, he sought an extension on medical grounds. The trial court granted an extension till July 15, 2016. However, instead of vacating, the tenant filed another extension request, which was rejected on August 8, 2016.

The landlord then filed an execution petition (No. 5655/2016) to enforce the eviction. The trial court issued a warrant of possession and directed police assistance for execution. The respondent then filed multiple applications challenging the execution.

Tenant’s Arguments

The respondent raised the following objections:

  • The landlord obtained the consent decree by concealing material facts, amounting to fraud.
  • No formal decree was drawn after the consent order, making the execution petition invalid.
  • The eviction suit was not maintainable under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as the property was covered under rent control laws.

Landlord’s Counterarguments

The appellant argued:

  • The consent decree was voluntarily signed by both parties, and the tenant had already availed multiple extensions.
  • The execution petition was valid even without a formal decree, as the consent order itself had the effect of a decree.
  • The trial court correctly rejected the objections raised by the respondent.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, upheld the trial court’s decision and ruled in favor of the landlord.

Consent Decree is Binding

“The respondent having taken time twice to vacate the suit house and yet not adhering to the undertaking given, this Court cannot countenance such conduct.”

The Court criticized the respondent for repeatedly delaying the eviction despite multiple extensions.

Execution Petition Was Maintainable

“Even though a formal decree was not drawn, the consent order dated 01.06.2012 had the effect of a decree by virtue of Order 20 Rule 6A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

The Court ruled that the absence of a formal decree did not invalidate the execution petition.

Rejection of Tenant’s Objections

The Court found that all objections raised by the respondent were frivolous and aimed at delaying the execution.

Imposition of Costs

The trial court had imposed a Rs. 5 lakh cost on the respondent for delaying tactics. The Supreme Court found this excessive and reduced the cost to Rs. 50,000.

Final Ruling

  • The execution petition was held to be maintainable.
  • The tenant was granted one month to vacate the premises.
  • The respondent was directed to pay all arrears of rent before vacating.
  • The execution order was restored, and the respondent was directed to vacate immediately after the procedural formalities were completed.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Court referred to key rulings on execution of decrees, including:

  • K.K. Chari vs. R.M. Seshadri (1973) 1 SCC 761: Affirmed that consent decrees are binding and enforceable.
  • Order 23 Rule 3 CPC: Deals with compromise decrees and their enforceability.
  • Order 20 Rule 6A CPC: Allows execution even when a formal decree has not been drawn.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces key principles in landlord-tenant disputes:

  • Consent decrees must be honored, and courts will not tolerate undue delays in execution.
  • A formal decree is not always necessary for execution if a consent order exists.
  • Tenants cannot exploit procedural loopholes to delay eviction indefinitely.
  • The courts will penalize frivolous objections intended to obstruct justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sir Sobha Singh And Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shashi Mohan Kapur is a landmark decision ensuring that tenants cannot indefinitely delay eviction by raising frivolous objections. The ruling reaffirms that consent decrees must be respected and executed without unnecessary litigation. This case sets a precedent for similar landlord-tenant disputes, upholding the integrity of contractual agreements and judicial orders.


Petitioner Name: Sir Sobha Singh And Sons Pvt. Ltd..
Respondent Name: Shashi Mohan Kapur.
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi, India.
Judgment Date: 15-07-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sir Sobha Singh And vs Shashi Mohan Kapur Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-07-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts