Delhi District Court
Mohd. Jamal vs Mohd. Islam on 30 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, CIVIL JUDGE17
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO. 115/03
Unique ID No. 02401C01385382003
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. Mohd. Jamal
2. Mohd. Israr
3. Mohd. Ashfaque
All Sons of Sh. Mohd. Islam
All R/o H. No. 3008, Gali Bashirruddin,
Kala Masjid, Turkman Gate,
Delhi
...........Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1. Mohd. Islam
S/o Sh. Mirajuddin
R/o 1804/6, Opp. Phatak Teliyan,
Turkman Gate, Delhi110006
2. Sh. Mirajuddin (Deceased)
Through His Legal Heirs
i) Mst. Hazra
ii) Mst. Saima
iii) Mst. Saira
All daughters of Sh. Mirajuddin
iv) Mohd. Islam
S/o Sh. Mirajuddin
R/o 1804/6, Opp. Phatak Teliyan,
Turkman Gate, Delhi - 110006
v) Mohd. Ahsan
vi) Mohd. Ikram
Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 1/21
vii) Mohd. Shaba
viii)Mohd. Nasir
ix) Mohd. Umar
x) Mohd. Zakir
xi) Mohd. Sajid
All Sons of Sh. Mirajuddin
st
R/o H. No. 1804, 1 Floor,
Turkman Gate, Delhi 110006
..........Defendants
Date of institution of the Suit: 16.05.2003
Date on which judgment was reserved: 19.11.2013
Date of pronouncement of Judgment: 30.11.2013
SUIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF POSSESSION, MESNE PROFIT AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendant seeking the following reliefs "(a) A decree of recovery of possession in respect of suit property bearing no. 1804/6, Opp. Phatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Delhi - 110006, consisting of one room at the ground floor of the suit premises and more particularly shown in Red colour in the attached siteplan; in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
(b) Pass a decree of Mesne Profit directing the defendants to pay Rs. Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 2/21 1,000/ per month as damages/mesne profit from the date of the filing of the present suit till its actual realization.
(c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, their agents, servants, assigns, restraining them from transferring the possession, subletting or creating third party interest in the said suit property bearing no. 1804/6, Opp. Phatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Delhi - 110006, consisting of one room at the ground floor of the suit premises and more particularly shown in Red colour in the attached site plan.
(d) Cost of the suit may also be awarded to the plaintiffs."
2. It is case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the owners/landlords of the property bearing no. 1804, Basti Phatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Delhi6 by way of a registered sale deed 26.12.2010. Out of aforesaid property a portion consisting of one room having private number 1804/6, Basti Phatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Delhi - 6 at the ground floor was under the tenancy of one Mst. Haseena, W/o Sh. Mohd. Ibrahim. The said room (herein after referred to as the suit premises) was under the use occupation of Mst. Haseena at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ exclusive of water and electricity charges and the said Mst. Haseena was occupying the same as a tenant. Upon purchasing the property the plaintiffs issued a legal notice dated 18.03.2003 informing her that the property had been purchased by the plaintiffs and by operation of Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 3/21 law Mst. Haseena had become a tenant and plaintiffs had become the landlords/owners qua the suit premises and she was called upon to pay the rent w.e.f. 26.12.2001 at Rs. 20/ per month exclusive of water and electricity charges to the plaintiffs within two months from receipt of the legal notice. The tenancy of Mst. Haseena was also terminated and she was called upon to handover the possession of the premises to the plaintiffs w.e.f. 31.07.2002 but Mst. Haseena did not comply with the notice and neither did she pay the arrears of rent. The plaintiffs came to know that Mst. Haseena expired at Delhi in August, 2002 and was issue less and left behind no legal representative to inherit the tenancy as per the Delhi Rent Control Act. Since there was no legal representative of Mst. Haseena the physical possession of the suit premises should have been handed over to the plaintiffs however the plaintiffs came to know that immediately on the death of Mst. Haseena the defendants had illegally and unauthorizedly occupied the suit premises. It was averred that the plaintiffs had neither permitted the defendants to take the possession of the suit premises nor did the defendants have any authority to do so and they were unauthorized occupants therein. The suit premises was situated in a commercial area and could fetch a high rate of rent. The plaintiffs on 31.10.2002 requested the defendants to vacate the suit premises but the defendants refused to do so. Legal notice dated Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 4/21 31.10.2002 was issued to the defendants but in spite of receiving the same the defendants failed to vacate the suit premises. On 05.05.2003 the defendants came to the shop of the plaintiffs at Turkman Gate and threatened the plaintiffs with dire consequences in case plaintiffs demanded the possession of the suit premises and also threatened that they would handover the suit premises to some other person. On 10.05.2003 again the plaintiffs requested the defendants to hand over the possession but again they refused to do so. On 11.05.2003 the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants were contemplating to sublet, assign or part with possession of the suit premises. The plaintiffs thus filed the present suit.
3. The defendants filed a joint written statement. Preliminary objections were taken. It was averred that there was no cause of action to file the present suit. The plaintiffs had suppressed material facts and the suit was bad for nonjoinder. It was also averred that the suit was not maintainable in the present form since the deceased Mst. Haseena had been a statutory tenant with respect to the suit property and before her death she had adopted a son namely Mohd. Arbaz who was already residing with her at the time of her death and the tenancy qua the suit premises was inherited by the son of the deceased tenant. The notice dated 18.03.2002 was illegal and could only be considered to be a letter of attornment. The property was situated in the Slum Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 5/21 area and the permission U/s 19 of the Slum Act was required to be filed. The defendants had no concern with the property in the suit rather the son of deceased Mst. Haseena was adopted from the brother of defendant no. 1 and the minor child was only being sheltered by defendant no. 1. The defendants also averred that the civil court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The site plan was disputed. It was averred that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and defendants.
4. In the reply on merits, the defendants denied that any legal notice had been issued to Mst. Haseena. It was stressed that Sh. Mohd. Arbaz being the legal heir of the deceased Mst. Haseena had inherited the tenancy of the suit premises. The allegations contained in the plaint were denied. The incidents of 05.05.2003, 10.05.2003 and 11.05.2003 as alleged in the plaint were denied. It was denied that the defendants were in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the suit premises and it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
5. Vide order dated 08.07.2003 the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession as claimed in the prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the damages/mesne profits and, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 6/21
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as claimed in the prayer clause (c) of the plaint? OPP
4. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties as alleged in para no. 3 and 4 of the preliminary objection in the written statement? OPD
5. Whether the suit is barred under the provision of Section 19 of the Slum Area Improvement and Clearance Act? OPD
6. Relief.
6. The plaintiffs in evidence examined Sh. Mohd. Jamal the plaintiff no. 1 as PW1 and Sh. Mohd. Islam, S/o Sh. Haji Faiz Mohammad as PW2. The defendants examined defendant no. 1 as DW1, defendant no. 2 as DW2 and Sh. Mohd. Umar (LR of defendant no. 2) as DW4. The defendants tendered the evidence of one Sh. Mohd. Hafisuddin as DW3 however despite repeated opportunities granted to the defendants to produce DW3 for the purpose of cross examination of the DW3, DW3 was not produced and right to lead evidence of DW3 was closed. The affidavit of evidence of DW3 thus cannot be read in evidence.
7. Upon conclusion of the trial final arguments were advanced by counsel for the parties. During the course of final arguments the plaintiffs moved an application U/o VI R 17 CPC seeking to amend the typographical error in the Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 7/21 description of the suit property in the prayer clause which was allowed vide order dated 09.09.2013, subject to cost to be paid to the defendants. Thereafter, further final arguments were advanced by counsel for the parties.
8. Counsel for plaintiffs placed on record the copy of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. The defendants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 186 (2012) DLT 697 titled Harish Chander Malik Vs. Vivek Kumar Gupta & Ors. and also referred to a commentary on Mohammedan Law pertaining to Parentage and Legitimacy however the name of the book and its author was not supplied by the defendants despite direction.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and scrutinized the court record.
10. My issue wise findings are as follows Issue No. 4 Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties as alleged in para no. 3 and 4 of the preliminary objection in the written statement? OPD
11. This issue is taken up first for the purpose of convenience.
The plaintiffs have examined PW1/plaintiff no. 1 in evidence who proved the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs dated 26.12.2001 with respect to the ground floor of property no. 1804, Opp. Phatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Delhi - 110006. As per the plaintiffs, Mst. Haseena was a Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 8/21 statutory tenant in respect of one room at the ground floor of the aforesaid property bearing private no. 1804/6 i.e. the suit property. To show that she was a statutory tenant, plaintiffs relied on Ex. PW1/3 legal notice dated 02.03.2002 issued by the plaintiffs terminating her tenancy and demanding arrears of rent and the AD Card with respect to the service of the notice was exhibited as Ex. PW1/4. PW1 denied the suggestion that Ex.PW1/3 was not a legal demand notice but only notice for attornment. Further, it was correctly pointed out by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that in paragraph four of the preliminary objections in the written statement, the defendants had admitted to Mst. Haseena being a statutory tenant, inasmuch as the plea taken was that the deceased Mst. Haseena had been a statutory tenant and before her death had adopted a son namely Arbaz who had inherited the tenancy. It was the defence of the defendants that they were not in possession of the suit property and it was only Master Arbaz who had inherited the tenancy and was in possession of the same. In their respective affidavits of evidence, Ex. DW1/A & Ex. DW2/A, the defendants no. 1 and 2 deposed that Master Arbaz was only being nourished and sheltered by the defendants and the room in question was not under the custody of the defendants. There is considerable force in the argument of Ld. counsel for the plaintiffs that if this was really the case, the defendants would have taken immediate steps to Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 9/21 get impleaded Arbaz as a party to the suit, seeking for him to be represented through a next friend, but they failed to do so. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. It has come out through the evidence of DW2 that Mst. Haseena was his paternal aunt. In the evidence of DW1, it has come out that Arbaz was the nephew of DW1 and in the cross examination of DW2, it has come out that Arbaz was the grandson of DW2. DW2 also testified that rd Sh. Ahsanuddin was the father of Arbaz who was residing on the 3 floor of the property bearing no. 1804. Being so closely related to the said Arbaz, the defendants could have well produced Arbaz during trial to prove their defence or sought issuance of summons to Arbaz from the court for examining him as a witness whose testimony would have been vital to their defence. The defence of the defendants regarding non joinder of necessary party must fail on the ground of non production of the material witness, especially since the defendants have failed to adduce absolutely any cogent documentary evidence to show that Arbaz was in possession of the suit property. DW1 and DW2 have mentioned a document i.e. an alleged photocopy of ration card of minor Arbaz in their affidavit however even that has not been filed or tendered in evidence. The defendants have not even examined any neighbour or other independent witness to corroborate their case that Sh. Arbaz was in possession of the suit property. In fact, it is Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 10/21 pertinent to note that the defendants' witness DW4 (the legal representative of defendant no. 2) in his cross examination at one point admitted that Arbaz was residing in Pakistan, and thereafter sought to correct himself stating that Arbaz was visiting Pakistan currently however he was resident of Delhi. PW1 and PW2 denied that the suit property was in possession of the said Arbaz and it was for defendants to prove the same. The physical possession of the suit property being with Arbaz has not at all been established by the defendants.
12. Coming into the contention as regards Arbaz being the adopted son of Mst. Haseena, the plaintiffs' witness PW1 and PW2 denied that Mohd. Arbaz was the adopted son of Mst. Haseena. DW4 on the other hand, deposed that he had personal knowledge that Arbaz was adopted by Mst. Haseena because she had celebrated the same by organizing a party and both DW2 and DW4 denied the suggestion that under Muslim Law, no child could be adopted. Pertinently however, DW2 in cross examination deposed as follows "No documents were executed for adoption of the said child Arbaz. I do not remember the exact date of adoption. I was present at the time of adoption. No witness was present. The said child was not in any school. I had not got entered the name of Arbaz in any official documents as having been Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 11/21 adopted by Mst. Haseena. Vol. no need arose for the same."
13. The aforesaid testimony of DW2 makes it quite clear that there is absolutely no reliable documentary evidence to prove that Mst. Haseena adopted Arbaz. Neither has Arbaz been produced as a witness nor has even the natural father of Arbaz, namely Ahsanuddin who allegedly gave the child in adoption to Mst. Haseena been produced as a witness by the defendants. Further, Ld. counsel for plaintiff relied on the commentary on Muslim Law titled 'Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law' (19 Edition by M. th Hidayatullah & Arshad Hidayatullah published by Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa) wherein it has been discussed that the Mahomedan law does not recognize adoption as a mode of filiation. DW1 deposed in evidence that Mst. Haseena died a Muslim. The Ld. counsel for defendant had also relied on a commentary on Mohammedan Law, and as noted earlier the copy of the title page of the said commentary was not provided thus the authorship is not ascertainable therefore no reliance can be placed thereon, however the point sought to be argued by counsel for defendants was that though adoption was as such not recognized in Muslim Law however there was a custom of adoption in many classes of Muslims. Now, it is settled that Muslim Law does not recognize adoption except if there is a particular custom of adoption. The defendants were therefore to specifically plead and Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 12/21 prove that there existed a valid custom in the particular community/ class of Muslim to which Mst. Haseena belonged by virtue of which adoption was recognized and secondly, that the child Arbaz had been adopted in accordance with the ceremonies prescribed vide such a custom. The defendants have not at all done so. The defendants have failed to prove either that Arbaz had been adopted by Mst. Haseena so as to show that he had inherited the tenancy of Mst. Haseena or even that Arbaz was in physical possession of the suit property. Resultantly, the defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiffs' suit is bad for nonjoinder of Arbaz, who in my opinion is not a necessary party in the present case. Issue decided against the defendants.
Issues no. 1, 2 and 3 (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession as claimed in the prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP (2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the damages/mesne profits and, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP and (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as claimed in the prayer clause (c) of the plaint? OPP
14. The plaintiffs have established their better right to the suit property against the defendants by virtue of the registered sale deed in their favour Ex. PW1/1. In fact, while DW1 evasively deposed that he did not know if Mohd. Jamal (plaintiff no. 1) was the owner of the suit property, deposing further that it might be, and also testified that he (DW1) was the owner of the first floor of Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 13/21 the property no. 1804, Turkman Gate, Delhi but not of the ground floor thereof; DW2 clearly admitted in his crossexamination the ownership of the plaintiffs qua the ground floor of the property no. 1804, Turkman Gate, deposing that the plaintiff was the owner of the entire ground floor of the property no. 1804, Turkman Gate, Delhi and the suit property was a part of the ground floor which was owned by the plaintiff. Clearly, the defendants have no right to be in possession of the suit property, having neither any title to the same nor any permission from the plaintiffs to be in possession thereof. The defendants have failed to establish that Mst. Haseena had adopted a son namely Arbaz and that Arbaz was in possession of the suit property, as already discussed in issue no. 4 above.
15. The defendants contended that they were not in possession of the suit property, if that were the case, it is strange that the defendants would have chosen to contest the present suit tooth and nail, the fact of the matter is that the suit property which is situated at the ground floor bears the no. 1804/6, Phatak Teliya, Turkman Gate, Delhi - 110006 and the summons to the present suit were served on the defendants at the address 1804/6, Opp. Phatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Delhi - 110006 and even in their affidavits of evidence, DW1 and DW2 both mention their addresses as 1804/06, Opp. Phatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Delhi 110006. It was argued on behalf of the Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 14/21 plaintiffs that though the entire property bore the no. 1804, however it was only the suit property which bore the no. 1804/06. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the defendants argued that the property in question was a multi storeyed property and the number referred to the other floors. Interestingly however, the defendants have nowhere in their respective affidavits of evidence specified the floor purportedly of the property no. 1804/06 which is in their possession, further, the receipt of the legal notice Ex. PW1/5 is not denied by the defendants in their affidavits of evidence (though the legality of the same was denied) which was also addressed at the property no. 1804/06, Opp. Phatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Delhi - 110006. I note that DW2 in cross examination denied receiving any legal notice and on being confronted with his affidavit Ex. DW2/A specifically para 9 therein, regarding the legal notice dated 31.10.2002 issued by the plaintiff, DW2 deposed that his statement in the affidavit was incorrect. This really only casts a doubt on the veracity of the witness, the admission regarding receipt of the legal notice already being contained in his own affidavit of evidence.
16. PW1 stood firm to his case during crossexamination that the defendants were in possession of the suit property, denying the suggestion that the defendants had no connection with the suit property and also denying the suggestion that Mohd. Arbaz was residing in the suit property in Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 15/21 the capacity of the tenant. PW2 also similarly supported the plaintiffs' case, and nothing useful to the case of the defendants could be elicited through his crossexamination. The defendants in their affidavits deposed that they had sent a reply to the legal notice Ex. PW1/5 however no such reply has been placed on record by the defendants. The site plan is Ex. PW1/2, the defendants have raised a vague objection that the same is not as per site, a suggestion to PW1 in this regard was denied by PW1 and the defendants have not filed their own site plan. The veracity of the site plan of the plaintiffs could not be successfully challenged by the defendants.
17. The evidence on record supports the plaintiffs' case who have sufficiently established their case against the defendants, while the defendants have failed to prove their defence. The plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to the relief of possession of the suit property.
18. As regards the relief of mesne profits, the plaintiffs have sought mesne profits @ Rs. 1,000/ per month from the date of filing of the suit till actual realization. The defendants have no right/title in the suit property but are in unauthorized occupation thereof without the consent of the plaintiffs despite the legal notice of the plaintiffs and therefore the defendants are bound to pay mesne profits to the plaintiff. The question is what would be the rate of the mesne profits to which the plaintiffs are entitled. The plaintiffs have led Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 16/21 no cogent evidence to prove that the prevalent rate of rent of similarly situated property at the time of filing of the suit was Rs. 1,000/ per month, either by way of documentary evidence or by way of oral testimony eg. evidence of any person who had let out similar property in the neighbourhood at such rates, the plaintiffs also did not cross examine the defendants on the issue of mesne profits. The defendants on the other hand have cross examined the plaintiffs' witness PW1 on the issue of mesne profits/damages and have elicited certain admissions in their favour. PW1 admitted that the suit property lies in JJ Slum Area, and had deposed that the plaintiffs were getting about Rs. 210/ to Rs. 220/ as total rent from all the property at the ground floor which was under the tenants. PW1 testified during cross examination that the highest paid rent of the shop was Rs. 60/. PW1 also admitted as correct the suggestion that old tenancies around the suit property were also of similar rate ranging between Rs. 50/ to Rs. 60/. In absence of any cogent, objective evidence by the plaintiffs justifying the valuation of the mesne profits @ Rs. 1,000/ per month and in view of the admissions made by the plaintiff no. 1 in his cross examination regarding the highest paid rent of the shop being Rs. 60/, the damages/ mesne profits to which the plaintiffs are entitled can only be fixed at Rs. 60/ per month, from the date of filing of the suit till handing over of the vacant possession of the Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 17/21 suit property.
19. Further, the defendants have no right to create third party interest in the suit property in which the plaintiffs have a better right and accordingly the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants etc. from transferring the possession of the suit property to any third person or creating third party interest therein.
Issues no. 1, 2 and 3 decided as above, in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No. 5 Whether the suit is barred under the provision of Section 19 of the Slum Area Improvement and Clearance Act? OPD
20. Ld. counsel for defendants laid particular stress on the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in186 (2012) DLT 697 titled 'Harish Chander Malik Vs. Vivek Kumar Gupta & Ors.' wherein it was observed and stressed that service of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act would not change the status of a tenant to that of an unauthorized occupant and the benefit of Section 19 of the Slums Act would continue to be applicable. DW1 has exhibited the information dated 18.06.2003 received from the Director (Town Planner), Office of the Competent Authority, Slum that the property no. 1804/6, Opp. Phatak Teliyan Turkman Gate, Delhi, Ward No. IX, was included in the areas declared as 'Slum Areas' under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 as Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 18/21 Ex. DW1/1. Though the exhibition of this document was objected to by counsel for plaintiff however the said letter is addressed to DW1 and the envelope thereof bearing the stamp of the government department is on record, thus the document has been correctly exhibited and even otherwise, PW1 admitted that the suit property fell in the Slum Area and no permission had been taken U/s 19 of the Slum Act before filing the present suit. However, the judgment of Harish Chander Malik (supra) does not aid the defendants' case because the protection of Section 19 of the Slum Act is available only to a person who is a 'tenant' and not to an unauthorized occupant. As held by me in the preceding issues, the defendants have not proved that the suit property had devolved upon Arbaz or even that Arbaz was in physical possession thereof. Thus, Mst. Haseena having admittedly died issue less and also having left behind no legal heirs as envisaged U/s 2 (l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the possession by the defendants of the suit property is merely possession in the capacity of unauthorized occupants and by no means in the capacity of the tenants. The suit of the plaintiffs is therefore not barred U/s 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956).
Issue is decided against the defendants.
Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 19/21 Issue no. 6 Relief.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaintiffs are held entitled to the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property i.e. property bearing no. 1804/6, Opp. Phatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Delhi 110006, consisting of one room at the ground floor shown as red in the site plan Ex. PW1/2. The plaintiffs are also entitled to a decree of mesne profits however only at the rate of Rs. 60/ per month from the date of filing of the suit till the date of handing over of vacant possession of the suit property from the defendants i.e. defendants no. 1 and LRs of defendant no. 2. The plaintiffs are also entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, their agents, representatives etc. restraining them from transferring the possession to any third person, subletting or creating third party interest in the suit property. The suit of the plaintiffs stands decreed accordingly as above. The site plan Ex. PW1/2 shall form part of the decree. Plaintiffs are also entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Decree to be executable upon payment of the differential court fees on the pendente lite mesne profits awarded.
File be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court ANJANI MAHAJAN
On 30.11.2013 Civil Judge - 17 (Central)
Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 20/21
30.11.2013
Suit no. 115/03 Mohd. Jamal & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Islam & Anr. 21/21