Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Pritam Singh vs . Gopal Dass & Anr. on 9 January, 2013

     IN THE COURT OF SHRI. GAURAV GUPTA, CIVIL JUDGE­1,
          SOUTH­WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI


                                     CS No: 157/12

                       Pritam Singh   vs.  Gopal Dass & Anr.

09.01.2013

O R D E R

1. Vide this order, I seek to dispose of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure moved on behalf of the plaintiff seeking an interim relief that the defendants be restrained from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the suit property till the disposal of the suit.

2. It has been averred on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 (who is the brother of the plaintiff) is the owner of LIG Flat No.721, Second Floor, Pocket­13, Phase­I, Dwarka, New Delhi­110075. It has been averred that in the year 2009, the defendant no.1 had taken a sum of Rs. 1.5 Lacs from the plaintiff for his personal need and then inducted the plaintiff as a tenant in the suit property. The rent was fixed at Rs. 1000/­ per month excluding other charges. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has been regularly paying the rent alongwith Pritam Singh vs. Gopal Dass & Anr.

C.S No. 157/12 page 1 of 3 electricity, water charges and utility charges. However, despite that, the defendant no.1 is threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit premises.

3. The defendant no.1 contested the application by filing his reply wherein he denied and controverted the averments made in the application and re­affirmed the contents of his written statement. It was submitted on behalf of defendant no.1 that the plaintiff was never inducted as a tenant in the suit premises nor a sum of Rs. 1.5 Lacs was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. It was further submitted that being a brother, the defendant had allowed the plaintiff to stay at the suit property out of love and affection. It was further submitted that the plaintiff has already been allotted a flat at Lok Nayak Puram, Bakharwala, Delhi. However, despite that, he is not vacating the suit premises.

4. I have heard both the sides and perused the entire case record.

5. The fact that plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit property is the admitted case of both the parties. The plaintiff has claimed himself to be a tenant whereas the defendant has contended that the plaintiff is a licensee. Either ways, it is clear that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises. Pritam Singh vs. Gopal Dass & Anr.

C.S No. 157/12 page 2 of 3

6. It is trite law that a person in settled possession cannot be forcibly dispossessed. To that extent, plaintiff has been able to establish a prima facie case in his favour. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff as his forcible eviction is likely to cause him an irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. However, this does not mean that the plaintiff can never be removed from the suit premises. The same can be done by following due process of law.

7. Accordingly, it is directed that till the disposal of the suit, defendant shall not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property except by following due process of law.

8. With above observations, the application moved on behalf of the plaintiff is disposed off. However, it is made clear that nothing in this order shall be construed to have any bearing on the merits of the case.

Announced in the open court (Gaurav Gupta) th on 9 January, 2013 Civil Judge­I/Dwarka Courts, South West District, Delhi.

Pritam Singh vs. Gopal Dass & Anr. 

C.S No. 157/12                                                                  page 3 of 3