Mrs. Manmeet Sumra Chonker vs Mr. Vipal Kumar Farmah & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
% Date of Decision: 01 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010479212025
+ CONT.CAS(C) 1087/2025 & CM APPL. 24621/2026, CM APPL.
29074/2026, CM APPL. 45818/2026
MRS. MANMEET SUMRA CHONKER .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhik Chimni, Mr. Ayan Das
Gupta, Ms. Pranjal Abrol, Mr.
Gurupal Singh, Ms. Moksha Sharma
and Mr. Tushar Chandra, Advs.
Mob: 9971830490
Email:
[email protected]
versus
MR. VIPAL KUMAR FARMAH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyam Bhatia, Mr. Shashwat
Misra, Advocates (M:9999666289)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):
1. The present petition has been filed alleging wilful breach of the
th
undertaking given to this Court, as recorded in the order dated 11
September, 2024, in RFA 382/2024.
2. The respondents are the owners of the subject premises, i.e., property
bearing no. ER/Shop No.32, Khasra No. 1609, Naraina, Delhi , where the
petitioner was a tenant, and was running a nursery school.
3. This Court notes that disputes between the parties were settled by way
th
of the Settlement Agreement dated 09 September, 2024, arrived at between
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36
the parties, which is reproduced as under:
“
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36
Signature Not Verified
Page 6 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36
Signature Not Verified
Page 7 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36
Signature Not Verified
Page 8 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36
”
4. On the basis of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement, the RFA
th
382/2024 was disposed of vide order dated 11 September, 2024, in the
following manner:
“
Signature Not Verified
Page 9 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36
”
5. Perusal of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement shows that the
petitioner herein was running a nursery school on the subject premises,
which measured 219.5 Sq. Yards. Further, the rent being paid by the
petitioner to the respondents for the subject premises was initially fixed at
Rs. 50,000/- per month, and at the time of said Settlement Agreement, the
same was increased to Rs. 63,500/- per month.
Signature Not Verified
Page 10 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36
6. The said Settlement Agreement was arrived at between the parties
since the petitioner left the premises three years prior to the expiry of the
nd
lease deed dated 02 May, 2018, executed between the parties. As per the
said Settlement Agreement, the respondents had agreed to compensate the
petitioner for relocation and re-establishment of the nursery school at a new
premises, including, all reasonable costs associated with relocation and the
difference in rent paid between the subject premises and new premises for
three years.
7. It has come to the fore that pursuant to the Settlement Agreement
th
dated 09 September, 2024, the subject premises was vacated by the
th
petitioner on 30 April, 2025. Moreover, the petitioner had also paid a sum
of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondents towards the maintenance charges.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have
th
violated Clause 07 of the Settlement Agreement dated 09 September, 2024,
and have not compensated the petitioner for relocation and re-establishment
cost for the school at the new premises, including, difference in the rent
between the original and new premises for three years.
9. This Court is informed that after relocation, the petitioner has opened
a school at Mohali, Punjab, in an area measuring 1022 Sq. Yards. Further,
the petitioner is stated to be paying a rent of Rs. 3,25,000/- per month for the
said new premises.
10. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the various bank statements
to show that the rent for the new premises in Mohali, is regularly being paid
by the petitioner. However, the respondents have not compensated the
petitioner for the same.
11. This Court also takes note of the submission made by learned counsel
Signature Not Verified
Page 11 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36
for the respondents that the petitioner has taken the aforesaid premises on
rent from her brother-in-law. On pointed query by this Court, learned
counsel for the petitioner concedes to the said fact and does not deny the
same.
12. Perusal of the terms of the Settlement Agreement arrived at between
the parties, which was entered at New Delhi for the school running at New
Delhi, shows that it was agreed between the parties that the respondents
shall compensate the petitioner for relocation and re-establishment of the
school at a new premises. However, the said Settlement Agreement cannot
be construed in a manner that the petitioner would open a school at Mohali,
Punjab, in order to bind the respondent to make payments towards the same.
The intention of the parties, as recorded in the terms of the Settlement
Agreement between the parties, cannot certainly be construed to giving free
liberty to the petitioner to open a new school anywhere in the country and
claim rent for the same from the respondent.
13. Furthermore, it is noted that the area where the school which was
earlier being run by the petitioner at New Delhi measured 219.5 Sq. Yards,
however, the new premises in which the school is now being run by the
petitioner at Mohali, measures 1022 Sq. Yards.
14. It is also material to note that while the rent paid by the petitioner for
the subject premises at New Delhi was initially fixed at Rs. 50,000/- per
month and was later fixed at Rs. 63,500/- per month at the time of said
Settlement Agreement, the rent currently being paid by the petitioner for the
new premises at Mohali is Rs. 3,25,000/- per month.
15. Clearly, the aforesaid Settlement Agreement cannot be construed in
such an unreasonable manner as sought to be done by the petitioner, i.e., the
Signature Not Verified
Page 12 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36
respondents are obligated to compensate her for opening a school at Mohali,
at a premises, which is five times the size of the earlier school at New Delhi;
and for expenses towards rent being paid by the petitioner, which is five
times more than that paid at New Delhi.
16. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no contempt
has been committed by the respondents.
17. No merit is found in the present petition.
18. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
19. The pending applications also stand disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026/ au
Signature Not Verified
Page 13 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.09.2026
16:13:36