Delhi High Court
RFA(COMM)/477/2024 of CHRISTOPHER PHOENIX Vs M/S AAR PEE APARTMENTS PVT. LTD & ANR. on 3 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA(COMM) 477/2024 CHRISTOPHER PHOENIX .....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Sachin Bandooni, Adv. versus M/S AAR PEE APARTMENTS PVT. LTD & ANR. .....RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sagar Aggarwal. Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET
$~5
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
RFA(COMM) 477/2024
CHRISTOPHER PHOENIX
.....APPELLANT
Through:
Mr. Sachin Bandooni, Adv.
versus
M/S AAR PEE APARTMENTS PVT. LTD & ANR.
.....RESPONDENTS
Through:
Mr. Sagar Aggarwal. Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGPH ARORA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
03.07.2026 RFA(COMM) 477/2024 CM APPL. 40309/2026 (For withdrawal of the appeal)
1. This is an application filed by the appellant herein with the following prayer:- “In view of the above submissions, and terms as outlined above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the present application to withdraw the said RFA (Comm) 477 of 2024, as compromised. It is prayed accordingly.”
2. Our attention has been drawn to the Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) dated 30.05.2026 executed between the appellant and the respondent through its Director. The application is also duly signed by the parties and their respective counsels and is duly supported by their affidavits.
3. The Trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 06.07.2024 had passed a decree of possession in respect of the suit premises in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant. The Trial Court also issued a decree for injunction in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
4. However, in the MoU parties have arrived at a settlement whereunder, Appellant has paid a further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Respondent and accordingly, Respondent has agreed to recognise the Appellant as the sole owner of the leasehold rights as per the agreement dated 19.11.1976 with respect to the suit premises. The detailed terms and conditions are set out in the MoU. The Respondent has agreed that it is left with no rights in the suit premises and it acknowledges the Appellant’s absolute rights to possession and ownership of leasehold rights in the suit premises.
5. Though, the prayer in this application is for withdrawing the RFA as compromised, the learned counsel for the parties state that in view of the MoU entered between the parties, the impugned decree is to be modified in terms of the said MoU.
6. A perusal of the terms of the MoU shows that the Respondent has agreed to have the decree dated 06.07.2024 for possession and injunction modified in light of the consideration received.
7. We, accordingly, dispose of this appeal by taking on record the MoU dated 30.05.2026. We modify the decree dated 06.07.2024 passed in CS(COMM) 139/2023 in terms of the MoU dated 30.05.2026.
8. Let the decree sheet be prepared in terms of the MoU dated 30.05.2026.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the application as well as the appeal is disposed of.
10. Pending applications are disposed of.
11. The date already fixed i.e., 23.07.2026 stands cancelled. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 3, 2026/rk