1$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 520/2011
IFCI LIMITED ..... Petitioner/Relator
Through: Mr. Dinkar Singh, Adv.
Versus
NARENDER KUMAR ..... Respondent/Alleged
Contemnor
Through: Mr. Amandeep Joshi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 17.08.2011
1. This order is in continuation of the earlier order dated 21 st July, 2011.
The counsel who was earlier appearing for the respondent / alleged
contemnor states that he is no longer appearing in this matter and has
returned the file. He however identifies the respondent / alleged contemnor
and his wife Smt. Pushpa, present in Court in person.
2. The respondent / alleged contemnor appearing in person states that
the Flat No.C-203, IFCI Staff Colony, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi is in
occupation of his wife Smt. Pushpa and he himself was ousted from the said
flat four years ago and has been residing at Faridabad for the last four years.
3. Smt. Pushpa appearing in person also confirms that the respondent /
alleged contemnor is not residing in the said accommodation and states that
he is residing with his parents. She also states that she has filed legal
proceedings for maintenance and under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent / alleged contemnor
and which proceedings are still pending. She further states that the
respondent / alleged contemnor has intentionally given an undertaking in
this Court to vacate the accommodation so as to oust her from the said
accommodation.
4. The counsel who had appeared for the respondent / alleged contemnor
on 7th February, 2011, states that he was not instructed of the said position
when the undertaking was given on that date to vacate the accommodation
within two weeks.
5. The counsel for the petitioner / relator invites attention to the order
dated 25th February, 2011 in complaint case filed by Smt. Pushpa under the
Domestic Violence Act, in which, it was clarified that there is no stay
against the dispossession of Smt. Pushpa from the aforesaid
accommodation. He also invites attention to an undertaking dated 7 th April,
2011 stated to have been given by Smt. Pushpa to vacate the
accommodation before 31st May, 2011.
6. On enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner / relator informs that on
vacation of the accommodation aforesaid, the payment of pension to the
respondent / alleged contemnor of approximately `15,000/- to `17,000/- per
month shall commence. Finding that in the order dated 25 th February, 2011
(supra), it is recorded that petitioner / relator is holding retiral benefits of
about `6,00,000/- of the respondent / alleged contemnor, the status thereof
was enquired. It is stated that the same are towards arrears of pension /
computation pension and which would also become payable to the
respondent / alleged contemnor immediately on delivery of possession of
the accommodation aforesaid.
7. The respondent / alleged contemnor appearing in person, after
understanding from the counsel who was earlier appearing for him, has
stated that for the lapse committed by him in not informing to the Court on
7th February, 2011 that in fact it was his wife who was in possession, he is
willing that all the arrears of `6,00,000/- or more which are due to him from
petitioner / relator, be released directly to his wife Smt. Pushpa for her
benefit and benefit of his daughter, who is of marriageable age, and which
amount be taken into consideration by the Courts where the other
proceedings between the respondent / alleged contemnor and his wife Smt.
Pushpa are pending.
8. Smt. Pushpa contends that the said amount of `6,00,000/- or more
would not get her alternate accommodation. She states that the alleged
contemnor is only 50 years of age and has another eight years of service left
and should be made to work so that she can continue in the official
accommodation.
9. However, neither can any such direction be given specially in these
proceedings nor can Smt. Pushpa be allowed to continue in official
accommodation when the alleged contemnor has sought retirement.
10. In the facts and circumstances, it is deemed expedient to grant time
till 30th September, 2011 to Smt. Pushpa to vacate the aforesaid
accommodation. She states that besides herself and her daughter Ms. Yogita
aged about 27 years, none else is in possession of the said house.
11. Accordingly, it is directed:
(i) Smt. Pushpa to vacate the accommodation aforesaid on or
before 30th September, 2011;
(ii) If she fails to so vacate the accommodation, the SHO, Police
Station Paschim Vihar is directed to have the said
accommodation vacated latest by 7th October, 2011;
(iii) Upon vacation of the said accommodation, whether voluntarily
or through police, the petitioner / relator to release the entire
amount of `6,00,000/- or more due to the respondent / alleged
contemnor in favour of said Smt. Pushpa on or before 31 st
October, 2011. It is clarified that the respondent / alleged
contemnor having made the statement in Court, the release of
the said amount in favour of Smt. Pushpa will not be dependent
upon the respondent / alleged contemnor signing any document
or applying for computation of pension as was contended. It
was further clarified that the arrears if any of licence fee / rent
due with respect to the said accommodation be not deducted
from the said amount and are to be adjusted / deducted out of
the pension due in future to the respondent / alleged contemnor.
(iv) As far as the future pension payable to the respondent / alleged
contemnor is concerned, the release thereof by the petitioner /
relator shall be subject to orders of the Courts in the other
proceedings filed by Smt. Pushpa against the respondent /
alleged contemnor. In the said proceedings, regard be also had
to the amount of `6,00,000/- or more to be received by Smt.
Pushpa under this order.
12. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AUGUST 17, 2011
‘gsr’