Delhi District Court
Sh. Raj Balam Shah vs Sh. Suresh on 4 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
COMMERCIAL CIVIL JUDGE (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 729/18
Sh. Raj Balam Shah,
S/o Sh. Bhgeloo Shah,
R/o B-387, Jawalapuri Camp No.4,
Sunder Vihar West,
Delhi-110087. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sh. Suresh,
S/o Sh. Raj Balam Shah,
2. Smt. Chanda
W/o Sh. Suresh
Both Resident of :-
B-387, First Foor,
Jawalapuri Camp No.4,
Sunder Vihar West,
Delhi-110087. ... Defendants
Date of filing : 01.06.2018
Date of Judgment : 04.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession and mandatory injunction in respect of property bearing No. B-387, portion of First Floor, Jwala Puri Camp No.4, Delhi-110087 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Plaintiff prays for restraining the defendants, their agents, heirs, assignees and other associates etc. from misbehaving, abusing, maltreating, disrespecting, behaving in any manner which causes mental CS No. 729/18 Sh. Raj Balam Shah Vs Sh. Suresh & Ors.
-2-or physical torture to the plaintiff and also restraining the defendants from entering into the suit property of the plaintiff.
2. The version of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has acquired the property bearing No. B-387, Jwala Puri Camp No.4, Delhi-110087 from Delhi Development Authority Jhugi Jhopri Removal Scheme vide receipt No. 3239 dated 09.03.1995 and has been in the possession of the suit property since it has been acquired and has been paying the electricity bills and other charges of the suit property to the concerned authorities.
3. It is further averred that the defendant no. 1 is the son and defendant no. 2 is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. That the suit property is the self-acquired property of the plaintiff. That the defendant no.1 is also residing in the portion of first floor of the abovesaid property of the plaintiff i.e. B-387, portion of First Floor, Jwala Puri Camp No.4, Delhi- 110087 in the capacity of a licensee. Similarly, when the defendant no.2 got married with defendant no.1, she was allowed to stay in the self- acquired property of the plaintiff only as a licensee. That since after the marriage, the defendant no.1 and 2 started creating problems in the peaceful living of the plaintiff and they also started harassing the plaintiff on petty issues and with their deceitful means, the defendant no. 1 and 2 also pressurized the plaintiff to transfer the above said property in the name of the defendants.
4. It is further averred by the plaintiff that plaintiff made a written CS No. 729/18 Sh. Raj Balam Shah Vs Sh. Suresh & Ors.
-3-complaint to the SHO P.S. Mianwali Nagar, Delhi against the defendants which is registered at DD No. 35B on 19.01.2016 and narrated all the inhuman and unwarranted acts of the defendants to the police but no action has been taken by the police till date. That when the acts of the defendants became intolerable, then finding no other option, the plaintiff disowned the defendants from his all movable and immovable properties through Public Notice. That thereafter, the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate his property as he is no more interested to allow them to continue to live in his self-acquired property. That it is only the plaintiff who has right, title and interest in the suit property and the defendants have no legal rights in the suit property. That they being gratuitous licensee can not continue to live in the suit property which is exclusively owned by the plaintiff.
5. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the cause of action for filing the present suit arose when the plaintiff acquired the suit property from the DDA in 1995. That the cause of action further arose when the plaintiff granted an oral license to the defendant no. 2 to live in the suit property. That the cause of action further arose on 15.05.2016, when the plaintiff disowned and debarred the defendants from his all movable and immovable property due to their aforementioned illegal and unwarranted acts through public notice. The cause of action further arose when the oral license so granted to defendant no.1 was revoked. That the suit property is situated within the jurisdiction of this court. That the plaintiff has not filed any other similar suit in any Court.
CS No. 729/18 Sh. Raj Balam Shah Vs Sh. Suresh & Ors.
-4-Lastly, plaintiff prays to the court that a decree for mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants be passed directing the defendants, their agents, heirs, assignees and other associates to vacate the suit property bearing No. B-387, portion of First Floor, Jwala Puri Camp No.4, Delhi-110087 and costs of the suit may also be allowed.
6. Record shows that despite service of summons, defendants failed to file the Written Statement and right of defendants regarding filing of written statement was struck off vide order dated 20.02.2019 and the matter was fixed for Plaintiff's Evidence.
7. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1. PW-1 proved his case by evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon documents Ex.PW1/1. In such evidence, he repeated the stand taken by him in original plaint. Photo copy of DDA Jhuggi Jhopri removal scheme receipt Ex.PW1/1(OSR), Photo copy of complaint Ex.PW1/2 (de-exhibited as photo copy) marked as Mark A (3 pages), another computerized copy of complaint dated 13.05.2016 along with RTI Ex.PW1/3 (de-exhibited as original was not produced) and marked as Mark-B, photo copy of newspaper cutting of public notice dated 15.05.2016 Ex.PW1/4 (de- exhibited as photo copy) and marked as Mark C.
8. I have heard the arguments. I have perused the documents, testimonies, case law relied upon and material on record.
CS No. 729/18 Sh. Raj Balam Shah Vs Sh. Suresh & Ors.
-5-9. Perusal of record shows that in the present case defendant no.1 is son of plaintiff and defendant no.2 is daughter in law. Record further shows that the plaintiff is seeking a mandatory injunction against both the defendants to vacate the suit property and hand over the peaceful possession of the suit property being occupied by the defendants as mentioned in his plaint on the ground that plaintiff has acquired the suit property bearing No. B-387, Jawala Puri, Camp No.4, Delhi from DDA, Jhuggi Jhopri Removal Scheme vide receipt No. 3239 dated 09.03.1995 and the claim of the plaintiff is that he has been in possession of the suit property since its acquisition and paying the electricity bills and other charges to the authorities concerned. In the present case, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 being son and daughter in law are residing in the suit property as licensee and it is undisputed fact as written statement was not filed by the defendant no.1 and 2 despite ample opportunity for the reasons best known to them. Since the period for filing such W.S got expired, this court, vide order dated 20.02.2019, struck off the right of filing the W.S by the defendants and the matter was fixed for plaintiff evidence wherein the plaintiff has reiterated his stand as taken by him in his plaint and has also relied upon several documents, I.e., copy of DDA Jhuggi Jhopri Removal Scheme Receipt Ex.PW1/1 (OSR), copy of complaint Mark A (03 pages), copy of complaint dated 13.05.2016 along with RTI Mark B, copy of newspaper cutting of public notice dated 15.05.2016 Mark C.
10. I have perused all the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. It is CS No. 729/18 Sh. Raj Balam Shah Vs Sh. Suresh & Ors.
-6-pertinent to mention that the present case is a suit for grant of mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. It is not the case for declaration of title. Moreover, it is also undisputed fact that both the defendants are residing at the suit property as licensee and not owner thereof. Moreover, although the receipt relied upon by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/1(OSR) does not prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit property yet it shows that the plaintiff is something more than both the defendants. Moreover, no W.S has been filed by the defendants and even right of filing of W.S has been struck off as time for filing got expired. It is also pertinent to mention that the defendants did not cross-examine the plaintiff despite ample opportunity given by this court, as a result of which the averments and the deposition made by the plaintiff remained unrebutted and unchallenged and this court does not have reason to disbelieve the testimony of plaintiff. Hence, in my considered view, the plaintiff has been able to prove his case.
Relief:-
11. In the light of the above discussions and findings, the present suit is decreed in respect of property bearing No.B-387, portion of 1st floor, Jawala Puri, Camp No.4, Delhi-110087 against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants and their agents, heirs, assignees and other associates are directed to vacate the suit property in their possession as mentioned above and hand over the vacant, peaceful, physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Furthermore, a decree for permanent injunction is also passed CS No. 729/18 Sh. Raj Balam Shah Vs Sh. Suresh & Ors.
-7-restraining the defendants and their agents, heirs, assignees and other associates etc. etc. from misbehaving, maltreating, disrespecting and causing mental and physical torture to the plaintiff and they are further restrained from entering the suit property of the plaintiff after vacating it. Plaintiff is also entitled to the costs.
12. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly.
13. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
on 04.02.2020 AJAY by AJAY NAGAR
(This judgment contains 07 pages) NAGAR Date: 2020.02.04
16:30:54 +0530
(AJAY NAGAR)
Commercial Civil Judge-cum-
Additional Rent Controller( West)
Delhi.
CS No. 729/18 Sh. Raj Balam Shah Vs Sh. Suresh & Ors.