Uttarakhand High Court
Dinesh Kumar And Another vs Suraj Prakash Gulati And Another on 18 September, 2017
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Civil Revision No. 124 of 2017
Dinesh Kumar & Another
.... Appellants
Versus
Suraj Prakash Gulati & Another
.... Respondents
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate along with Mr. P.S. Bisht, Advocate forhte
revisionists.
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondents.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Having heard the rival contentions at the question of admission, it transpires that the subject matter of the JSCC suit 23/2015 is in the shape of a big room which is being used as a godown by the dependants- brothers of such property and is a part and parcel of Kalkatte Wali Dharamshala located at 10 Mukherji Marg, Rishikesh.
A part of such dharamshala came in controversy before this court in SA 50/2015 titled as Praveen Dhyani and Another vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and Others wherein this court passed an order dated 21.4.2015 directing Mr. Dhyani as well as Shanti Devi to maintain the status quo at the spot and further observed that in view of the court, the property in question as indicated above (popularly known as Kalkatte Wali Dharamshala) is under the danger of being grabbed or rather portions of such property which were basically meant for religious and charitable purposes have already been grabbed by the plaintiffs/appellants (Praveen Dhyani & Another) as well as 2 defendants respondents (Smt. Shanti Devi & Others) on one score or the other. So, the court appointed the Amicus Curiae (two advocates who are practicing advocates at High Court but originally residents of Rishikesh) to go on the spot to take stock of the situation, note down each and every factual aspect as to how much portion/rooms/space is under whose possession and in what manner this property is being managed and controlled.
The court has been apprised that such order of this court was under challenge in the Hon'ble Apex Court and the portion entailing the appointment of the Amicus Curiae was kept in abeyance but the order of status quo was kept maintained with a liberty to move a review application before this court. Such review application has never been argued for adjudication.
Now, the second portion of the said Dharamshala is again before this court in the form of present litigation whereof the defendants claims themselves to be the tenant @ Rs. 200/- per month while the suit was commenced by Shri Suraj Prakash Gulati and Smt. Shanti Devi Gulati (the son and the mother) claiming themselves to be the owner of this property at the strength of registered sale deed dated 12.4.2007.
The learned court below in paragraph 27 of its judgment has highlighted that as per the deed dated 12.4.2007 it has been written 'the sellers hereby transfers, alienates and assign all that lease hold rights in property bearing Municipal No. 10 Mukherjee Marg, Rishikesh'. So, the landlord has made the oral submissions that he purchased the lease hold rights only vide deed dated 12.4.2007. The question arises if he purchased only the lease hold rights then how in paragraph 2 of the plaint the pleadings could be drafted claiming the plaintiffs to be the owner in possession of the property in question.
3There is yet another significant aspect of the controversy which indicates that originally this property was leased out to Smt. Mohri Bibi by Shri Mahant Ram Ratan Dass who was rendering his services to Shri Bharat Ji Maharaj (the original owner of the property). Lease was given to Mohri Bibi (resident of Kalkatte) who during her life time got constructed 'Tej Pal Brahmdutt Kalkatte Wali Dharamshala'. After the death of Mohri Bibi the property came in the possession and control of her legal representatives who issued a power of attorney to Dr. Sunil Gulati conferring the rights on him to further transfer the lease hold rights only but Shri Sunil Gulati executed this sale deed on 12.4.2007 in favour of her own real brother and mother who initiated JSCC 23/2015 for eviction of this so called godown.
The attention of this court has also been drawn to the original lease deed executed in 1904 & 1907 whereby anybody was specifically debarred to execute the sale deed or give such property at contract except to transfer the same either through Will or Gift.
In the backdrop as has been pointed out, I admit this revision for hearing.
The plaintiffs/respondents have already been represented.
The operation of the impugned order dated 24.8.2017 shall remain stayed. List this matter for final hearing along with the SA 50/2015.
Meanwhile, the revisionists are hereby directed to deposit all arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.4.2007 till date @ Rs. 200/- per month which he himself admits in the court of the JSCC, Rishikesh and will continue to deposit the same till the matter is finally adjudicated. The court shall remain under direction not to permit anybody for 4 withdrawal of such money without the sanction of the court.
Let the certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel of the revisionist within 24 hours on payment of usual charges.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 18.9.2017 Pooja