Delhi District Court
Sh. Rakesh Kumar Behl vs Sh. Satya Narain Sharma on 13 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH
SCJ/RC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS. No.10644/16
In the matter of:
1.Sh. Rakesh Kumar Behl
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar Behl Both Sons of Late Sh. Krishan Kumar 982, Ground Floor, Bhojpura, Maliwara, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
Permanent Address 4mm Mai Viva Road, Amritsar, Punjab ........Plaintiffs Versus Sh. Satya Narain Sharma R/o 982, First Floor, Bhojpura, Maliwara, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi110006.
.......Defendant
Date of filing of the Suit : 16.04.2008
Date of reserving order : 21.05.2018
Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2018
CS. No.10477/16 In the matter of:
Sh. Satya Narain Sharma S/o Late Sh. Mam Raj Sharma, R/o House No. 982983, Bhojpura, Maliwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi110006.
........Plaintiff Versus Judgment Page..... 1/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16
1. Sh. Rakesh Kumar
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar Both residents of House No. 2385II/32, Bazar Malkon, Amritsar, Punjab.
.......Defendants Date of filing of the Suit : 17.04.2008 Date of reserving order : 21.05.2018 Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2018 J U D G M E N T
1. These are two cross suits. One is Suit No. 10644/16 titled as "Rakesh Kumar Behl Vs. S. N Sharma" filed by Sh. Rakesh Kumar Behl and Sh. Ashok Kumar Behl both sons of Late Sh. Krishan Kumar Behl, who was tenant in one "baithak" forming part of property No. 982, Bhojpura, Maliwara, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property)since 22.03.1965. 1.1 The other is Suit No. 10477/16 titled as "Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr." is filed by Sh. Satya Narain Sharma who is the grandson of Ms. Nanchi Devi @ Kasturi Bai (landlady) who subsequently purchased the suit property from the previous owner Sh. Laxman Dass son of Sh. Phool Chand. Sh. Satya Narain Sharma claims Judgment Page..... 2/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 to be the adopted son of Smt. Nanchi Devi @ Kasturi Bai. 1.2 Both the parties are plaintiffs as well as defendants in both the suits. For the sake of clarity Sh. Rakesh Kumar Behl and Sh. Ashok Kumar Behl the plaintiffs in suit no. 10644/16 shall be referred to as tenants and Sh. Satya Narain Sharma plaintiff in suit no. 10477/16 shall be referred to as landlord.
1.3 The plaintiffs / tenants have sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant / landlord and persons claiming through him from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs / tenants and other cotenants from the suit property. Further, restraining the defendant / landlord and persons claiming through him from putting his lock on the suit property.
1.4 It is prayed that the defendants (tenants) and persons claiming through them may be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property and taking forcible possession of the same. It is further prayed that the mandatory injunction may be issued directing the tenants / defendants to remove their locks from the suit property. Judgment Page..... 3/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16
2. Brief Facts of suit no. 10644/16 filed by Sh. Rakesh Kumar Behl and Sh. Ashok Kumar Behl (tenants): 2.1 Sh. Krishan Kumar Late father of the plaintiffs was inducted as a tenant in the suit property on 22.03.1965 by Sh. Laxman Dass son of Sh. Phool Chand. The rate of rent was Rs. 34.50 P./ per month. It is claimed by the tenants that the suit property was let out to their father for business of clothes and general merchant.
2.2 Later Sh. Laxman Dass sold the said property to Smt. Nanchi Devi @ Kasturi Bai. The tenancy was continued under Smt. Nanchi Devi @ Kasturi Bai. The rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 50/per month. The defendant i.e the landlord started collecting rent on behalf of Smt. Nanchi Devi @ Kasturi Bai without issuing rent receipts. 2.3 Sh. Krishan Kumar father of the tenants / plaintiffs expired on 08.07.2000. Thereafter, the present plaintiffs / tenants along with their other brothers became joint tenants in the suit property. They started paying rent to the landlord. The rent was paid upto December 2007. 2.4 The main business of the plaintiffs / tenants is in Amritsar and they are permanent residents of Amritsar. The suit property is being used Judgment Page..... 4/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 for business in Delhi as and when they visited Delhi. In MarchApril 2008, the plaintiffs / tenants came to Delhi and tried to open the suit property. The defendant / landlord created hindrance and restrained the plaintiffs / tenants.
2.5 The original landlady Smt. Nanchi Devi @ Kasturi Bai expired in 1971. This fact was never disclosed by the landlord to the tenants or their father. Money order of rent for the period 16.12.1999 to 15.12.2004 was sent by the tenants in December 2004. It was reported that the premises was locked. Even after return of money order of rent for the period 16.12.2004 to 15.01.2008 the defendant / landlord continued to receive rent without issuing receipt(s). On 28.03.2008 rent for the months of January to March, 2008 was sent by money order. It was report that the addressee has expired. This was the first time when the tenants came to know about the death of Smt. Nanchi Devi @ Kasturi Bai. 2.6 The electricity meter at the suit property is in the name of Sh. Krishan Kumar late father of the tenants. This meter is showing no consumption of electricity since 02.05.1996. As per the admission of the landlord, Sh. Krishan Kumar late father of the tenants was using the suit Judgment Page..... 5/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 property till December 1999. It shows that the business at the suit property was being managed without electricity. The said electricity meter is still in the name of the father of the tenants. 2.7 The claim of the defendant / landlord regarding handing over of the suit property and surrender of tenancy in the year 1999 is false. The father of the tenants had a heart surgery at Amritsar in May 1999. Thereafter, he was confined to bed. The plaintiffs / tenants were doing the business in the suit property. Their father never visited Delhi after May 1999 till his death on 08.07.2000. As such there was no occasion for him to clear the arrears of rent till December 1999 and surrender tenancy by handing over the possession of the suit property to the landlord in December 1999.
2.8 The tenants have been making purchase and sale of clothes at Delhi. In this regard documents pertaining to the year 200405 are annexed. Income tax returns details for the year 200708 are also annexed.
2.9 On 28.03.2008 and 31.03.2008, the defendant / landlord made a false PCR call alleging that the plaintiffs / tenants were trying to Judgment Page..... 6/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 take forcible possession of the suit property. 2.10 On 02.04.2008, the defendant / landlord along with four criminal associates came to the suit property. He threatened the plaintiffs / tenants and forcibly tried to dispossess them by throwing their goods and belongings out of the suit property. However they could not dispossess the plaintiffs / tenants. This incident was reported at PS Chandni Chowk vide DD No. 17A dated 02.04.2008. However no action was taken by the police.
3. Written statement of defendant / landlord Sh. Satya Narain Sharma. It is stated that the defendant / landlord Sh. Satya Narain Sharma was adopted by his maternal grandmother Smt. Nanchi Devi @ Kasturi Bai in the year 1945. In this regard an adoption deed was also executed. It is admitted that Sh. Krishan Kumar late father of the plaintiffs / tenants was a tenant in the suit property. It is denied that the suit property was let out for commercial purposes. It is stated that the suit property was let out for residential purposes only. After the death of Smt. Nanchi Devi @ Kasturi Bai in the year 1971, defendant / landlord has became the owner of the suit property.
Judgment Page..... 7/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 3.1 Relations between the defendant / landlord and Sh. Krishan Kumar father of the tenants were cordial. In December 1999 Sh. Krishan Kumar cleared all the dues of rent till December 1999 and he vacated the suit property. Vacant peaceful possession of the suit property was handed over to the defendant / landlord. Since then the defendant / landlord is in possession of the suit property and residing therein along with his family. 3.2 On 28.03.2008 in the morning, the plaintiffs / tenants along with some unknown persons came to the suit property. They threatened the wife of the defendant / landlord to vacate the suit property and hand over the possession of the same to the plaintiffs / tenants. Wife of the defendant / landlord made a call at 100 number PCR. She put a lock on the suit property and went to the first floor i.e the property no. 983 (SIC). In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs / tenants along with the help of some unknown persons and the police broke open the lock of the suit property and started throwing out the belongings of the defendant / landlord lying in the suit property. The plaintiffs / tenants put their lock at the suit property over the lock of the defendant / landlord. 3.3 On 31.03.2008 again the plaintiffs / tenants came at the suit Judgment Page..... 8/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 property and threatened to break open the lock and take possession of the suit property.
3.4 Further the defendant / landlord has plainly and simply denied the case of the plaintiffs / tenants.
4. Brief facts of the case bearing suit no. 10477/16 filed by Sh. Satya Narain Sharma (landlord): 4.1 Herein the landlord Sh. Satya Narain Sharma has repeated the stand taken by him in the aforementioned written statement. It is claimed that since January 2000 till 28.03.2008 he was in uninterrupted possession of the suit property and residing therein along with his family members.
4.2 On 11.04.2008 the plaintiffs / tenants came and tried to take forcible possession of the suit property but due to the resistance of the landlord and his neighbours the tenants could not succeed . Although the landlord has the possession of the suit property but the tenants have been successful in putting their locks at the suit property with the help of local police.
4.3 The electricity connection at the suit property was in the name Judgment Page..... 9/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 of Sh. Krishan Kumar deceased father of the tenants. The same has been disconnected on the ground of nonpayment of electricity bills.
5. Written statement filed by the tenants i.e Sh. Rakesh Kumar Behl and Sh. Ashok Kumar Behl. The tenants have repeated their stand already taken in the plaint filed by them. It is further claimed that on 16.12.2004 they sent arrears of rent to Smt. Nanchi Devi @ Kasturi Bai through money order.
6. Vide order dated 03.06.2010, common issues were framed in both the suits. It was directed that the parties would lead their evidence in suit no. 268/08 (new number 10644/16) filed by the tenants Sh. Rakesh Kumar Behl and Sh. Ashok Kumar Behl. The evidence led in the said suit would be read in both the matters. It was further directed that the parties would be referred to as per their status in suit no. 268/08 (new no. 10644/16).
7. ISSUES:
7.1 Vide order dated 03.06.2010, Ld. Predecessor framed the following common issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief of permanent Judgment Page..... 10/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
3. Relief.
8. EVIDENCE:
8.1 Vide order dated 23.02.2012, it was directed that the evidence led by the tenants in suit No. 268/08 (new number 10644/16) would be read as defence evidence in the connected suit bearing No. 335/08 (new number 10477/16).
8.2 Evidence of tenants 8.3 Plaintiff / tenant Sh. Rakesh Kumar Behl examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. P1.
He relied upon the documents i.e Ex. PW1/1 is the site plan, Ex. PW 1/17 to Ex. PW1/30 are the sale invoices of M/s. Bhiwani Textiles Dyers, Simran Transport Co., Haryana Punjab Cargo Carriers, Ludhiana Hemkunt Sahib Transport Co. & New Delhi Uklana Rajasthan Tpt. Co., Ex. PW1/39 is partnership deed dated 30.07.1999, Ex. PW1/40 is certificate issued by M/s. Karan Enterprises, Ex. PW1/45 & Ex. PW1/46 are certificate issued by M/s. Cott. Fab. Industries along with details of Judgment Page..... 11/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 sales made by plaintiff for M/s. Cott. Fab. Industries, Ex. PW1/50 to Ex. PW1/55 are the certificates issued by Khanna industries, M/s. Cott Fab. Industries, Karan Enterprises, Om Textile mills, Talwar textile traders and M.S. Traders showing the business done by the plaintiffs / tenants no. 1 &
2. He further relied upon the following documents i.e Ex. PW1/X is the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC, Ex. PW1/X1 and Ex. PW1/X2 are original postal receipts, Ex. PW1/X3 to Ex. PW1/X11 are the police complaints and action taken on them with R.T. I application, Ex. PW1/2 is the rent deed, Ex. PW1/3 is the original death certificate, Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/9 are the original rent receipts, Ex. PW1/12 is the original rent receipt dated 16.12.2004 of money order and photocopy of money order is on the back of the it, Ex. PW1/13 original postal receipt dated 28.03.2008 of money order and the return slip of money order is Ex. PW 1/10, Ex. PW1/14 to Ex. PW/16 are the original electricity bills, , Ex. PW1/11 carbon copy of the invoice dated 05.09.2004, Ex. PW1/69/81 are the carbon copies of other invoices issued by the plaintiff in favour of the buyers, Ex. PW1/41 copy of TDS, Ex. PW1/42 Copy of IT return of 200809 of plaintiff no. 1, Ex. PW1/43 original receipt issued by the Judgment Page..... 12/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 income tax department, Ex. PW1/44 copy of computation of I.T, Ex. PW1/47 to Ex. PW1/49A are the set of TDS, IT return, Receipt from I.T and computation of plaintiff no. 2 and the Ex. PW1/50 is the copy of partnership deed dated 30.07.1999 8.4 Tenants examined Sh. Raman Khanna as PW2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. 8.5 Both the witnesses were duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the landlord.
8.6 Vide statement dated 07.04.2015 of plaintiff Sh. Rakesh Kumar Behl (tenant), PE was closed in affirmative in suit no. 268/08 (new number 10644/16).
9. Evidence of landlord 9.1 Defendant / Landlord examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. P1. He relied upon the following documents i.e Ex. PW1/A is sale deed in Urdu along with translated version of sale deed, Ex. PW1/B adoption deed, Ex. PW1/C Death certificate of Banarasi Devi, Ex. PW1/E site plan, Ex. PW1/F Judgment Page..... 13/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 photograph, Ex. PW1/G Reply to RTI, Ex. PW1/H Report of Local Commissioner & Ex. PW1/I Mutation Order.
9.2 Landlord examined Smt. Shakuntala Sharma as PW2. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. P2. She relied upon the documents which are already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/I in the examination chief of PW1 i.e the landlord Sh. Satya Narain Sharma. 9.3 Both the witnesses were duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the tenants.
9.4 Vide order dated 23.08.2016 in suit NO. 10644/16 upon the submission of Ld. Counsel for the landlord, evidence on behalf of the landlord was closed. Opportunity was given to the tenants to lead evidence, in rebuttal. Vide order dated 07.02.2017, upon application of the tenants, rebuttal evidence was closed. The tenants did not lead any evidence in rebuttal.
10. Written submissions filed on behalf of the parties perused. COURT'S FINDINGS AND REASONING: Now, issuewise findings are as under:
11. ISSUE NO. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to equitable Judgment Page..... 14/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiffs i.e the tenants.
11.1 The tenants have sought permanent injunction restraining the landlord and persons claiming through him from illegally and forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs / tenants from the suit property. 11.2 It is admitted case of the parties that the suit proeprty was taken on rent by Late Sh. Krishan Kumar father of the tenants in the year 1965. Thereafter, the suit property was purchased by Smt. Nanchi Devi @ Kasturi Bai. Further the landlord claims that in December 1999 Sh. Krishan Kumar surrendered the tenancy after clearing the arrears of rent. Primafacie it is proved that Sh. Krishan Kumar was the tenant in the suit property. It is the claim of the tenants that the tenancy was for commercial purpose whereas the landlord has denied the same. In the present matter the nature of tenancy is not of much importance / relevance, except for the fact that in case of commercial tenancy it would be inherited by the LR's of deceased tenant.
Judgment Page..... 15/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 11.3 Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act read as follows : "The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case."
11.4 IllustrationD appended to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act read as follows: "That a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or state of things usually cease to exists, is still in existence;"
11.5 In view of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act and particularly illustration - D appended to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act it can be presumed that but for exceptional circumstances the tenancy created in favour of Lt. Sh. Krishan Kumar would continued to exist. It is the landlord who claims that the tenancy seized upon surrendered of the Judgment Page..... 16/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 same in December 1999. the onus shifts upon the landlord to prove that Late Sh. Krishan Kumar surrendered the tenancy in December 1999 after clearing the arrears of rent.
11.6 During his cross examination dated 10.02.2016, the landlord PW1 (as recorded in suit no. 10477/16), admitted that no documents regarding handing over of the possession of the suit property by Sh. Krishan Kumar to the landlord were prepared. It is claimed that due to good relation between the parties Sh. Krishan Kumar voluntarily surrendered the tenancy. The landlord PW1 has not produced any specific evidence to show that the relations between the parties were of such nature that Late Sh. Krishan Kumar would voluntarily surrender the tenancy without any specific reason. PW1 landlord further admitted that the electricity meter at the suit property is still in the name of Late Sh. Krishan Kumar. The landlord claims that after December 1999 he is residing at the suit property along with his family but during cross examination he admitted that he does not have any official document to show that he was in possession of the suit property from the year 2000 to March 2008. The electricity bills Ex. PW1/14 to Ex. PW1/16 are for the Judgment Page..... 17/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 years 2000 and 2001. In all these three bills it is mentioned "premises locked". If the landlord was in possession of the suit property there was no reason why repeatedly the premises would be found locked and the officials of the electricity department would not be able to take readings of the electricity meter. The landlord PW1 has not led any evidence to show that he has got installed any new electricity meter in his name at the suit property. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the dues of electricity bills are against the property and not against any individual. If the landlord wants to keep his property clear of any encumbrance, in the due course of business he would have cleared the arrears of electricity bills and either got the previous electricity meter disconnected or got fresh electricity meter at the suit property in his name. However, the landlord has not done any of these acts. As already observed above, the onus has shifted to the landlord to show that the tenancy was surrendered in December 1999. At the cost of repetition it is pertinent to observe that no person would voluntarily surrender the tenancy without any specific reason or material gain. The landlord has baldly claimed that Late Sh. Krishan Kumar surrendered the tenancy in December 1999 without any Judgment Page..... 18/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 specific reason.
11.7 In view of the above, it can be safely concluded that the tenancy was not surrendered by Late Sh. Krishan Kumar in December 1999 or at any other time. Accordingly, in view of the provision of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, the tenancy is presumed to be continued. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs / tenants and against the defendant / landlord.
12. ISSUE NO. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiffs / tenants.
12.1 This issue deals with issue of mandatory injunction. I have read carefully prayerB of the plaint. There is nothing in prayerB of the plaint (of the tenants) to show that they are seeking any relief in the nature of mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs / tenants have sought the relief that the defendant / landlord and persons claiming through him may be restrained from putting locks at the suit property and not create Judgment Page..... 19/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 any hindrance or interference in the use and occupation of the suit property. This relief is in the nature of permanent injunction / prohibitory injunction and no mandatory injunction.
12.2 As per case of the parties, both the parties have put their locks at the suit property. For an effective adjudication of these present suits, it is deemed fit that the landlord be directed to remove his lock from the suit property. Accordingly, the landlord Sh. Satya Narain Sharma and persons claiming through him are directed to remove their lock from the suit property.
12.3 Accordingly, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs / tenants and against the defendant / landlord.
13. ISSUE NO. 6: Relief.
13.1 The landlord Sh. Satya Narain Sharma and persons claiming through him are permanently restrained from forcibly and illegally dispossessing the tenants (plaintiffs in suit no. 10644/16) from the suit property. Further, the landlord Sh. Satya Narain Sharma and any other person claiming through him are directed to remove their lock from the suit property.
Judgment Page..... 20/21 Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16 Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16 13.2 Suit No. new no. 10477/16 (old no. 335/08) titled as "Sh. Satya Narain Sharma vs. Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr." is dismissed. 13.3 Suit No. 10644/16 (Old No. 268/08) titled as "Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. Satya Narain Sharma" is decreed.
14. No order as to cost.
15. Joint decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
16. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by
RAJINDER RAJINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.07.18
15:12:56 +0530
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJINDER SINGH)
COURT ON 13.07.2018 SCJ/RC(WEST)/ DELHI
Judgment Page..... 21/21
Rakesh Kumar Behl & Anr. Vs. S. N Sharma CS. No. 10644/16
Sh. Satya Narain Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. CS. No. 10477/16