IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 9th April, 2020
AJAY KUMAR….. PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Neeraj Shrama, Adv.
IIFL HOME FINANCE LTD. ……RESPONDENT
The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) vide the impugned order, in view of the grave situation triumphing within the United States with reference to Covid19 and taking a lenient view, directed recovery of ownership of two floorings (out of five floorings existing in the properties) viz. The ground floor and second-floor difficulty to deposit with the aid of the petitioner of Rs.6 lacs via the subsequent day and of a 3rd ground difficulty to the petitioner depositing another sum of Rs.4 lacs, with the respondent. However, the primary and fourth floors have been ordered to remain in the possession of the respondent till entire outstanding payment, of approximately Rs. Sixty-five lacs have been paid by the petitioner to the respondent.
Through: Mr Ram Kumar & Ms Bindu Das, Advs. with Mr Ram Sharma, Attorney of the Respondent Mr Neeraj Sharma, counsel for the candidate has argued that,
(I) The petitioner alongside his better half Manisha Kumar and three minor kids were living on the first floor of the property;
(II) That different floors of the property were used by the tenants of the petitioner;
(III) That the petitioner, his family members alongside the occupants and their family since 19th March 2020, when they were confiscated, are staying in a one-room house in Rohini, Delhi; and,
(IV) The petitioner pleads to this Court to, in one month of the lifting of the lockdown, whether absolutely or partial to settle with the respondent and pay the whole settlement to add up to the respondent and looks for consent to the petitioner, his family, the tenants and their families too, for current time period reoccupy the property.
Ms Bindu Das, Advocate for the respondent alongside Mr Ram Sharma, Attorney of the respondent has battled that:
(a) The petitioner is occupied with the business of educational institutes and coaching classes;
(b) That the petitioner blamed for a case of leaking examination paper and has also gone in custody for quite a while;
(c) The petitioner has made bogus guarantees in the past;
(d) The study loan was taken by the petitioner and educational institutes and coaching classes which was managed by both petitioner and by Mrs Manisha Kumar wife of the petitioner who in reality is the owner of the property
(e) The petition under Section 17 of the DRT Act before the DRT is misconstrued for non-impleadment of the mortgager Mrs Manisha Kumar;
(f) The respondent has no issue with the petitioner and others in control of the property expelling their family articles from the property;
(g) The petitioner is now in default of the concession allowed by the DRT and isn’t qualified for any further concession; and,
(h) As against a measure of Rs.6 lacs, the petitioner has paid uniquely about Rs.3,48,000/ – to the respondent.
The court stated that the petitioner and his wife Mrs Manisha Kumar are ordered to be bound thereby and are informed through Counsel Mr Neeraj Sharma of the consequences of the breach of an undertaking given to the Court. The court directed as under: