Delhi District Court
Premwati vs Dda on 11 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RINKU JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCA No. 05/2025
CNR No. DLCT03-001762-2025
In the matter of:-
SMT. PREMWATI
WIDOW OF LATE SH. RAKESH
H.NO. D-2748, LALITA BLOCK,
SHASTRI NAGAR,
DELHI-110052 ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
VIKAS SADAN, I.N.A.,
NEW DELHI
THROUGH ITS:
THE VICE CHAIRMAN,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
(UDHIYAN) ...RESPONDENT
Date of Institution : 25.03.2025
Reserved for Judgment : 30.08.2025
Date of Decision : 11.09.2025
Decision : DISMISSED
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER/DECREE
DATED 21.05.2022 PASSED BY LD. CIVIL JUDGE-02,
CENTRAL DIST., DELHI, IN SUIT NO. CS No.98/2016
TITLED AS SMT. PREMWATI VS. D.D.A., WHEREBY THE
LD. TRIAL COURT WAS PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SUIT
RCA No. 05/2025 Premwati Vs. DDA Page No. 1 of 8
OF THE APPELLANT UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND HAS ISSUED
DIRECTION TO THE APPELLANT TO VACATE THE SUIT
PROPERTY UPTO 31.05.2022 (WITHIN 10 DAYS OF
PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER)
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal impugns the decree/order dated 21.05.2022 passed by the then Ld. Civil Judge-02, Central, whereby the suit instituted by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant herein was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant therein. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to by their nomenclature in the main suit.
Pleadings of the plaintiff:-
2. Brief facts pertinent to the present adjudication as delineated in the plaint are that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of a park measuring 1.6 acres in 56 bighas, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property').
The suit property was taken by the plaintiff from the defendant upon an auction for planting, growing and maintaining the flowers, trees and keeping pots etc. for sale to the public. An agreement dated 14.10.2011 was executed between the parties after which, plaintiff was authorized to collect flowers/fruits in the area measuring 1.6 acres at a license fee of Rs.5,880/-.
3. It is further stated that vide agreement dated 06.08.2014, the license of the plaintiff was renewed upto 31.05.2015 at a license fee of Rs.9,680/-. It is stated that after RCA No. 05/2025 Premwati Vs. DDA Page No. 2 of 8 May 2015, plaintiff approached the officials of the defendant for renewal of the license, however, she was assured to carry on her business, but the license was not renewed. Prior to the plaintiff, her father-in-law had taken the suit property on license in the year 1979 and the suit property had been in possession of the plaintiff and her father-in-law since then.
4. It is further stated that on 10.03.2016, the officials of defendant threatened the plaintiff to dispossess her from the suit property, without any notice and reason. It is stated that fruit and flower of value about Rs.15,00,000/- was standing on the suit property, therefore, she requested the officials to not dispossess her. Plaintiff regularly paid the license fee. She has an apprehension of forcible dispossession. Hence, the suit before the Ld. Trial Court with the following prayers:-
To pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, restraining the defendants, its officials etc. permanently from dispossessing the plaintiff from the area 1.6 acres in M/O Park, Old Orchard at Shastri Nagar, Ph-III, (56 bighas) Delhi and from removing the plaintiff therefrom, without adopting the due process of law. Any other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Pleadings of the defendants:-
5. Summons of the present suit were issued and defendant entered appearance. WS was filed on behalf of the defendant stating that defendants is a licensor of the suit property. Defendant has admitted of entering into agreements dated 14.10.2011 and 06.08.2014. As per the license, plaintiff was entitled to be in possession of the suit property only till RCA No. 05/2025 Premwati Vs. DDA Page No. 3 of 8 31.05.2015, after which, her entry in the suit property was stopped without the permission of Jt./Dy. Director (Hort.)- in- charge. As per the terms & conditions of the agreement, plaintiff was not vested any right, title or interest in the suit property except having the limited right to collect fruit/flower crops. As per the terms & conditions of the license agreement, possession of the suit property continued to be vested with the DDA.
Decision of the Ld. Trial Court:-
6. Now directly coming to the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court while exercising the powers u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC held that as per the terms and conditions of the license agreement, the possession of the suit property was never handed over to the plaintiff and the same always vested with the defendant.
Therefore, plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit property. There was no triable issue in the suit and therefore, the suit was dismissed u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Grounds of appeal:-
7. The impugned order is assailed primarily on the grounds that:-
(a) Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that the possession of the suit property was never handed over to the plaintiff.
(b) Ld. Trail Court failed to consider that the plaintiff had never admitted that she had been dispossessed from the suit property or the possession has been taken over by the defendant.RCA No. 05/2025 Premwati Vs. DDA Page No. 4 of 8
(c) Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the plaintiff was in settled possession of the suit property even after the expiry of the license period i.e. 31.05.2015.
(d) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no notice had been issued to the plaintiff nor plaintiff has been compensated for the improvements made by her in the suit property as plaintiff has invested around Rs.15,00,000/- in the suit property.
(e) Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the defendant never prayed for the possession of the suit property, which has been granted by the Ld. Trial Court without any such prayer.
(f) Ld. Trial Court has wrongly applied the provision u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Decision with reasons:-
8. I heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides. I have perused the record.
9. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that on 01.04.2022, statement of the plaintiff was recorded u/o 10 Rule 2 (2) of the CPC wherein, it has categorically been admitted by the plaintiff that the officials of the DDA visited the suit property in the year 2017 and removed her belongings from the suit property.
The officials of the DDA cut down all the trees and damaged the crops growing in the suit land. She further stated that after the officials of DDA left the suit property, she again started to reside in the suit property.
10. Plaintiff has admitted of entering into a agreement RCA No. 05/2025 Premwati Vs. DDA Page No. 5 of 8 dated 06.08.2014. Clause - 1, 4 and 11 of the said agreement are reproduced as below:-
(1) That in consideration of the payment Rs.9680/- z/c Security /(Nine Thousand six hundred eighty only) as licence fee received vide receipt No. 0989196 dated 19-06-14 from the month 1-7-14 to 31-05-2015 the licensee for due performance of the terms and conditions of the agreement/licence deed, the licensee is allowed to collect the fruits and flowers for the said period from the foresaid orchard.
****** (4) No right, title or interest whatsoever shall accrue in favour of the licensee in respect of the orchards except to collect fruit/flower crops there from. The possession of the orchards shall continue with Delhi Development Authority. ****** (11) On the expiry of the period of licence or on sooner determination thereof, the licensee shall stop entering the orchard except with the permission of Jt/Du Director (Hort)-
Incharge. Any such entry by him or on his behalf without permission shall amount to trespass and the licensee shall be responsible for consequences thereof.
11. Perusal of the terms & conditions of the agreement dated 06.08.2014, it is amply clear that plaintiff was only a licensee in the suit property that too for the purpose of collection of fruits/flowers. Possession of the suit property was never handed over to the plaintiff and it always remained vested with the defendant/DDA.
12. Once, it had been admitted by the plaintiff, by way of the admission made in the agreement dated 06.08.2014 by relying upon the same that the possession of the suit property had never been handed over to the plaintiff. Further, it had been admitted by way of the statement dated 01.04.2022 that after the RCA No. 05/2025 Premwati Vs. DDA Page No. 6 of 8 officials of the defendant/DDA had cut down all the tress and damaged all the crops in the year 2017, plaintiff entered into the property after the officials of the defendant/DDA left the site. Plaintiff cannot be termed to be in possession of the suit property in any other capacity, than as an encroacher/trespasser.
13. From the discussion above, it is amply clear that the possession of the suit property had never been handed over to the plaintiff as is clearly evident from clause 4 of the agreement dated 06.08.2014. The re-entry of the plaintiff in the suit property, after the expiry of license and without any permission from the competent authority cannot clothe the plaintiff with any kind of possession in the suit property. Therefore, the plea of settled possession is unsustainable and the same is misconceived.
14. Further, plaintiff has contended that she invested the substantial amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in development of the suit property. However, the license agreement itself prohibits creation of any permanent rights whereas, the factual position is completely contrary as the license agreement stipulates cessation of authority upon expiry of the term of license or the termination thereof.
15. It is a settled position of law that injunction is a discretionary relief which can be granted only in aid of valid and subsisting legal right. Further, it is trite that no injunction can be granted to a person against the true owner while the said person is holding the property in capacity of an encroacher or a trespasser. There is no enforceable right in favour of the plaintiff.
RCA No. 05/2025 Premwati Vs. DDA Page No. 7 of 816. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned decree/order dated 21.05.2022 and there is no merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed and the decision of the Ld. Trial Court is upheld.
17. No order as to costs.
18. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
19. The appeal file after due compliance be consigned to the Record Room. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of the judgment. Digitally signed by Announced in open Court RINKU RINKU JAIN Date:
on this 11th Day of September, 2025 JAIN 2025.09.11 13:15:44 +0530 (RINKU JAIN) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-01 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI RCA No. 05/2025 Premwati Vs. DDA Page No. 8 of 8