MANOHAR LAL BHATIA vs HARPAL SINGH LAMBA

Judgment text excerpt

$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 09.01.2025 + RC.REV. 415/2019 MANOHAR LAL BHATIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj & Mr. Vidur, Advocates. versus HARPAL SINGH LAMBA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) CM APPL. 781/2025 [seeking recall of order dated 19.11.2024] 1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 19.11.2024 to the extent of recovery of use and occupation charges. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has handed over the possession of the subject premises to the Respondent but now the Respondent is seeking arrears of the mesne profits/use and occupation charges. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was unwell and the father of the counsel appearing for the Petitioner was also not well and thus could not file the affidavit as directed by order dated 09.10.2024. 4. The Application as filed by the Petitioner is without merit. The record Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 415/2019 Page 1 of 6 By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:13.01.2025 14:41:23 of the Court shows flagrant disobedience of the orders of the Court from time to time. 5. This Court, 31.10.2023, had affixed use and occupation charges, which were payable in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd.; (2005) 1 SCC 705. On that date, the Court had directed payment of use and occupation charges including arrears of the use and occupation charges, which were required to be paid in four equal instalments. The said order had also specified, in paragraph 8 therein, that in the event that there is any default in the payme