Delhi District Court
Mst. Nasreen Begum vs The Muntazama Committee on 22 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANJAL ANEJA
CIVIL JUDGE-06, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
Suit no.318/14
Unique ID No. 02401C6160132004
Mst. Nasreen Begum
Daughter of Shri Mohd. Ahmad,
Resident of 2739 Chhoti Baradari,
Ballimaran, Delhi.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. The Muntazama Committee,
Masjid Haji Abdul Hakim
Chhoti Baradari, Ballimaran,
Delhi,
Service Through Its Mutawalli
Shri Mohd. Yamin R/o 2735,
Chhoti Baradari, Delhi.
2. Delhi WAQF Board
Daryaganj, Delhi
Through Its Secretary .....Defendants
SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF THE CASE : 17.12.2004
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED FOR ORDER : 22.11.2014
DATE OF ORDER/JUDGMENT : 22.11.2014
Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 1 of 17
Dated: 22.11.2014
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for possession and permanent injunction against the defendant.
2. The brief facts as per the amended plaint are that the property no. 2731 Chhoti Baradari, Ballimaran, Delhi is of Masjid and is a wakf property under the overall supervision and control of Delhi Wakf Board i.e. defendant no.2. That the said property is being looked after by Muntazama Committee, Masjid Hazid Abdul Hakim and Mohd. Yamin is its secretary.
3. It is alleged that late father of the plaintiff was tenant in respect of the shop no. 2731 at monthly rent of Rs. 15/- and was running his business in it. That the father died intestate leaving behind 13 daughters and 1 son who inherited the tenancy rights. That all other legal heirs have relinquished their tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiff who has become the sole tenant. That the purpose of tenancy was commercial and was used by the father as such.
4. It is further alleged that the defendant wanted to construct the mosque as well as shop in May 2004 and asked the plaintiff to hand over the shop for reconstruction assuring to handover back the same after its rebuilt. Upon this the plaintiff vacated the shop and handed over the same to defendant. But now the defendant have gone dishonest and intending to handover the shop to third person the defendant was even showing the shop to a party on 13.12.2004 and was found negotiating but plaintiff immediately approaching and requesting the defendant, the defendant stated that the shop will not be returned to her. That the plaintiff is thus entitled to decree of possession of the shop shown in red colour in the site plan and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from giving/handing over the shop to any third person.
Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 2 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014
5. In WS on behalf of defendant no.1, it is stated that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. That plaintiff has never been in possession of the suit property. That actual tenant was Mr. Mohd Ahmed who expired on 26.04.1980 and he was having only one son Wali Mohd and 13 daughters and plaintiff is one of them. That the only son Wali Mohd expired on 11.11.1997 and since then nobody came to claim the tenancy in the suit property and the property, a mosque under the management of defendant no.2, was in a dilapidated condition which was reconstructed in the year 2004, hence, at any time plaintiff was never in possession and hence, the present suit is not maintainable. It is not denied that the property is of Masjid Haji Abdul Hakim and is looked after by defendant no.1 whose secretary is Mohd. Yamin.
6. It is contended that after the death of the original tenant Haji Mohd Ahmed in 1980 his son Wali Mohd took possession of the suit property but he never paid any rent to answering defendant no.1. That plaintiff, being daughter of Mohd. Ahmed, never came up to claim tenancy in the suit shop and even after the death of Wali Mohd none came to claim tenancy over the suit shop. The relinquishment of tenancy rights by other legal heirs in favour of the plaintiff is denied.
7. The averments regarding reconstruction and defendant no.1 asking the plaintiff to hand over possession are denied. It is further contended that none came to claim the tenancy of the suit shop after the death of Wali Mohd on 11.11.1997 but the committee came to know through documentary prove that the son of Wali Mohd namely Shahzad i.e. grandson of original tenant to surrender the tenancy right of his father Wali Mohd and grand father Mohd Ahmed in favour of Mohd Ashqeen by way of surrender deed in lieu of an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- and executed surrender deed on 04.06.2004. that Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 3 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014 thereafter the said Mohd. Ashqeen surrender his right in favour of answering defendant and the answering defendant is having the possession of the shop in question. All other averments of the plaint are denied.
8. In WS on behalf of defendant no.2, it is admitted that the property bearing no. 2731 chhoti Baradari, Ballimaran, Delhi is of Masjid and is a wakf property under the overall supervision and control of Delhi Wakf Board i.e. defendant no.2. It is denied that there is any Mumtazama Committee of the Masjid in question recognised and constituted by the answering defendant no.
2. It is further stated that the statutory right and the possession of the plaintiff should not be curtailed with regard to the tenancy in respect of the shop. Regarding averments pertaining to reconstruction of the mosque as well as shop it is stated that the same is related to defendant no.1 which has to reply. It is alleged that defendant no.1 has no right to initiate action with regard to the tenanted property/wakf property. Regarding other averments as to the father being tenant, he dying intestate leaving 14 children, legal heirs relinquishing rights in favour of the plaintiff, tenancy being commercial, suit shop being handed over by plaintiff to defendant no.1, intention of defendant no.1 becoming dishonest etc, the defendant no.2 has neither admitted nor denied but has simply replied the same have to be proved by the plaintiff himself.
9. As regards prayer, it is pleaded that the prayer clause of the plaint is not denied is not opposed with regard to the prayer of illegal action of defendant no.1
10. In separate replications to written statements, the averments of the WS have been denied and those of the plaint are reiterated and reaffirmed.
11. Issues were framed vide order sheet dated 08.11.2005 as under:-
Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 4 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014
1. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file present suit? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff has approached the court with unclean hand?OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled in the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decreee of mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP
6. Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
7. Relief Vide order dated 12.11.2007 issue no.5 was replaced with new issue no.5 and an additional issue no. 5A was framed. Both these issue are reproduced as under:-
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decreee of possession as prayed for? BOP
5. (A) Whether surrender deed executed by Shahzad dated 04.06.2004 in favour of Mohd. Ashqeen is a valid surrender & whether surrender deed executed by Mohd. Ashqueen in favour of defendant no.1 is a valid surrender and if so its effect? BOD1
12. To substantiate her case, plaintiff herself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and tendered affidavit in evidence Ex. PW-1/A. Plaintiff filed her site plan as Ex PW1/1.
Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 5 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014
13. On the other hand, Mohd. Anis appeared as DW-1, Mohd. Ashqeen appeared as DW-2, Shujauddin appeared as DW-3 and their affidavits in evidence are Ex. DW-1/1, Ex. DW-1/2 and Ex. DW-3/A respectively. Mohd. Yameen, secretary also made a statement on 08.11.2005.
No evidence was lead on behalf of defendant no.2.
14. I have heard the arguments of both sides & perused the record. My issue wise findings is as under:-
15. Issue No. 11. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file present suit?
OPP Locus standi means the right to bring an action for which sufficient connection has to be shown by a party to the harm caused. In the present case it is not in dispute that the original tenant in respect of suit shop was Mohd. Ahmad who expired in year 1980 and left behind one son Mr. Wali Mohd. and 13 daughters amongst whom plaintiff is one of them. These legal heirs are thus not disputed. Plaintiff, being one of the legal heir of the original tenant, has brought the present suit and thus shown her locus standi. There is no bar as such that one legal heir cannot bring a suit against the landlord since the tenancy devolved jointly in favour of all heirs and one of the joint tenant can bring such suit.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
16. Issue No.2
2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit? OPP Cause of action is a bundle of facts which when pleaded give basis to Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 6 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014 the relief claimed. Plaintiff in the present suit alleges that she handed over possession of suit shop to defendant no.1 at its desire for reconstruction with understanding that the shop would be returned back after the work is complete. It is not in dispute that plaintiff is the daughter of original tenant. It is further alleged that defendant no.1 did not return the suit shop and clearly denied. These averments and allegations when read, certainly give cause of action to the plaintiff to file the present suit.
Issue no.2 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
17. Issue No. 3, 4, 5 & 5 (A)
3. Whether the plaintiff has approached the court with unclean hand?OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled in the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decreee of possession as prayed for? BOP
5. (A) Whether surrender deed executed by Shahzad dated 04.06.2004 in favour of Mohd. Ashqeen is a valid surrender & whether surrender deed executed by Mohd. Ashqueen in favour of defendant no.1 is a valid surrender and if so its effect? BOD1 These issues can be taken together.
18. Facts which have been admitted by defendant no.1 in the case are that Modh. Ahmad i.e father of plaintiff was originally the tenant in the suit shop no. 2731 who expired on 26.04.1980 leaving behind one son namely Wali Mohd. and 13 daughters, all married except the plaintiff. Mohd. Ahmad leaving behind these heirs is thus not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that even said Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 7 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014 Wali Mohd. Expired on 11.11.1997.
19. Regarding the averments of defendant no.2 contained in its W.S. as to Muntazama Committee i.e. defendant no.1 being self-styled body having no right or title legally to initiate any action w.r.t. suit property, it is seen that defendant no.2 did not led any evidence to prove these contentions. Moreover, the manner in which pleadings of the plaint are replied in its W.S. suggest that defendant no.2 is not much concerned with what is happening with the suit shop. Most of the averments of the plaint have been denied simply in the words that ' it is to be proved by the plaintiff.' Defendant no.2 even did not deny the main averments of the plaint such as Mohd. Ahmad being tenant in suit shop for commercial purposes, he dying intestate leaving heirs including the plaintiff, other legal heirs relinquishing their shares in favour of plaintiff and plaintiff becoming sole tenant, reconstruction of mosque & shops, handing over of suit shop by plaintiff to defendant no.1, defendant no.1 becoming dishonest & not returning back the suit shop etc. Defendant no.2 has, in respect of the above mentioned averments, just stated that these have to be proved by plaintiff. By keeping away from denying any of the averments, defendant no.2 has shown its position of being unaware of the factual aspects of the dispute. Defendant no.2 appears to have no knowledge and is least concerned about the fact that who has tenant in the suit shop, upon whom the tenancy devolved and who possesses the suit shop. Rather in para 4 of W.S. it is pleaded that the statutory right and position of plaintiff should not be curtailed with regard to the tenancy in respect of the shop. This pleading thus supports the case of the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 may be having overall supervision and control but nothing more than that has been shown.
20. Now, I come to the case presented by the plaintiff. It has been alleged Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 8 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014 by plaintiff that she is the sole tenant in the suit shop, all other legal heirs having relinquished their respective tenancy rights in her favour, and that she handed over the suit shop in may 2004 to defendant no.1 at its request to reconstruct it & return thereafter. It is further alleged that defendant no.1 on account of malafide intention did not return back the suit shop and rather threatened and thus she seeks its possession.
21. The suit is mainly defended by defendant no.1 as per which plaintiff has never been in possession of suit shop. It is also contended by defendant no.1 that Wali Mohd., the only son of original tenant took possession though he never paid rent, also expired on 11.11.1997 and since then nobody came to claim tenancy of suit shop. In later paras of W.S. it is also alleged that defendant no.1 gained knowledge through documents that Shahzad, son of Wali Mohd. i.e. grandson of original tenant surrendered tenancy rights in the suit shop in favour of Mohd. Ashqeen vide surrender deed dated 04.06.2004 in lieu of Rs. 1,17,000/- and thereafter said Mohd. Ashqeen surrendered his right in favour of defendant no.1 and thus defendant no.1 is having possession of suit shop.
22. Taking the defence of defendant no.1 first which also touches issue no. 5 A, onus of which is upon defendant no.1 itself. Defendant no. 1 has propounded a surrendered deed dated 04.06.2004 vide which allegedly Shahzad S/o Wali Mohd. and grandson of Mohd. Ahmad (original tenant) surrendered the tenancy rights in respect of shop and handed over possession to said Mohd. Ashqeen. The document of that surrender deed has been filed in the form of a photocopy which is Ex. DW-2/A. Although, permission to lead secondary evidence was sought but it has to be remembered that not only the document but also the factum of the Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 9 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014 destruction/loss of its original have to be proved. The permission to lead secondary evidence does not absolves the duty of proving that the original is lost or destroyed or existence of any other condition as is mentioned u/s 65 Indian Evidence Act as a pre-requisite to lead secondary evidence.
23. It is noteworthy that DW-1, Mohd. Anis, General Secretary of defendant no.1 in his examination-in-chief on 12.05.2011 deposed that since original of the document mentioned in para 6 & 7 of his affidavit-in-evidence has not been brought, as such the document & its contents be deleted from his affidavit. This document is the said surrender deed dated 04.06.2004. Thus, defendant no.1 has itself stepped back form its defence of surrender deed by deleting the document & its contents from its evidence.
24. Since Mohd. Ashqeen in his affidavit-in-evidence Ex. DW-2/A has relied upon the said surrender deed Ex. DW-2/A (also seen to be corrected as Ex. DW-2/1), it is necessary to refer to his testimony. Another witness DW-3 Mr. Shujauddin also relied upon this document, so his testimony is also to be seen. DW-3 states himself to be an attesting witness to this document Ex. DW-2/A. Contradictions are noted in the testimonies of these two witnesses DW-2 & DW-3 w.r.t. the said document Ex. DW-2/A. While DW-2 in his cross- examination dated 21.01.2013 deposed that 3 or 4 copes of Ex. DW-2/A was got prepared, one was retained by him, one was given to Shahzad, one was taken by defendant no.1 and another spare copy was also retained by him and that on all four copies the parties mentioned in Ex. DW-2/A put their signature, on the other hand DW-3 in his testimony dated 21.01.2013 deposed that only one copy was prepared and no other copy was made of the said surrender deed. Even if the version of DW-2 is believed then according to him 4 originals of the surrender deed was made. It is surprising that none of Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 10 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014 the original has landed on the judicial record. The executor of surrender deed Mr. Shahzad has also not been summoned who could have deposed and brought the original. Defendant no. 1 has already deleted this document from its affidavit-in-evidence. DW-2 despite having 2 original copies did not produce even one and simply deposed on 21.01.2013 that he lost one of the original about 3 years but does not remember the exact date, month and year. He even did not got any police report lodged.
25. DW-3 who is one of the attesting witness to the document Ex. DW-2/A deposed on 21.01.2013 that no other document was written with regard to surrender of possession of the suit shop and that he does not remember how much money was given by Mohd. Ashqeen to Shahzad and that money was not given in his presence. DW-3 is also an attesting witness to the receipt for Rs. 1,70,000/- but his above noted testimony does not supports the said receipt. Even DW-2 has deposed that he had not shown this amount in his income-tax returns and also the suit shop was not reflected in the assets possessed by him in the year 2004. DW-2 also deposed that he had taken this sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- from his pateral aunt but she was not called as a witness. Thus, the payment of Rs. 1,70,000/- and receipt remained not proved.
26. Thus, in light of the findings & observations in the foregoing paras, it is concluded that defendant no.1 has failed to prove the surrender deed Ex. DW-2/A and also the factum of the loss of its original. Even otherwise the surrender of tenancy rights could only be done back to the landlord and not to any 3rd person for consideration without consent of landlord. This surrender, if at all, cannot be seen as valid surrender in law.
27. Now coming to the contention of defendant no.1 that Mohd. Ashqeen Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 11 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014 further surrendered the tenancy right in favour of defendant no.1. In this regard it is seen that it was never pleaded by defendant no.1 that any document was executed by Mohd. Ashqeen in its favour, but it is noteworthy that although said Mohd. Asheqeen appearing as DW-2 also is silent in his affidavit-in-evidence about execution of any document or surrender deed in favour of defendant no.1 but in cross examination dated 21.01.2013 he deposed that there was a writing/ document executed by defendant no.1 while taking possession of suit shop form him and his signatures were obtained there on and copy of said document was given to him & original thereof was retained by defendant no.1. Admittedly said document has never seen the light of the day and the abovenoted deposition of DW-2 exposes defendant no.1 as it is observed that defendant no.1 is absolutely silent about any such document. No effort by defendant no.1 even after this deposition of DW-2 has been taken to lead any additional evidence to bring such document on record or to state otherwise. It is also pertinent to observe that DW-3 also in a similar way, deposed about a document between defendant no.1 & Mohd. Ashqeen only in his cross-examination dated 21.01.2013 and stated that he was a witness in it. But the testimonies of DW-2 & DW-3 are mutually contradictory w.r.t. the document as DW-2 stated that the said writing was not on a stamp paper but was on a plain paper while DW-3 stated that it was on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/-
28. Also noted that DW-1 in his affidavit-in-evidence deposed that Mohd. Ashqeen after obtaining possession from Shahzad handed it over to defendant no.1 but in his cross-examination dated 12.05.2011 he deposed to the contrary by admitting that Mohd. Ashqeen never came in possession of the suit shop.
Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 12 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014
29. The deposition in affidavit-in-evidence of DW-1 that surrender of rights & possession by Mohd. Ashqeen in favour of defendant no.1 was as a religious gesture is also beyond pleadings as nothing of this sort is averred in its W.S.
30. Thus, defendant no. 1 has also failed to prove its averment that Mohd. Ashqeen surrendered his rights & handed over possession of suit shop to it.
31. In totality, defendant no.1 has failed to prove its defence that it got possession of the suit shop from Mohd. Asheqeen who got it from Mr. Shahzad. The factum of the two surrenders have not been proved and consequently issue no. 5(A) is decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.1.
32. This failure on the part of defendant no.1 in proving its defence lends support to the case of plaintiff. Defendant no.1 has admitted the averments of the plaintiff to the extent that the original tenant Mohd. Ahmad left surviving one son Wali Mohd. & 13 daughters as legal heirs amongst whom plaintiff is one of the daughters and is unmarried. Both the sides even agree to the extent that the son Wali Mohd. used to do tailoring business in the suit shop and after the death of original tenant no rent receipt was issued. The issue in the suit revolves around the question whether tenancy rights of original tenant devolved upon legal heirs after his death. As admittedly the tenancy was in respect of shop i.e. for commercial purpose, the answer is in affirmative. Thus, tenancy devolved upon all legal heirs of deceased tenant including the plaintiff. An important admission in this regard DW-1 in cross-examination dated 12.05.2011 is worth reproducing as under:-
"The plaintiff never surrendered a tenancy rights in writing in favour of defendant no.1 committee."
Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 13 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014
33. It is never the case of defendant no.1 that plaintiff verbally surrendered her tenancy rights in favour of defendant no.1, rather defendant no.1 had set up a different case altogether of surrendering rights by Mr. Shahzad in favour of one Mohd. Ashqeen who surrendered in favour of defendant no.1 and as observed in foregoing paras, defendant no.1 has miserably failed in proving the same. Thus, there is no evidence on record that plaintiff ever surrendered her tenancy rights to defendant no.1.
34. In this scenario, the question, whether plaintiff was ever in actual physical possession of the suit shop as her legal possession is established, assumes less importance. It is noted that in WS para 6 preliminary objections defendant no.1 stated that after the death of Wali Mohd. (son of original tenant) in 1997, none came to claim the tenancy in the suit shop. But in cross- examination DW-1 deposed to the contrary by stating that Shahzad came in possession of the suit shop in the year 1997 immediately after the death of Wali Mohd. and he remained in possession till 2004. Now this deposition clearly appears to have been made only to support the concocted story that Shahzad surrendered tenancy rights to Mohd. Ashqeen who in turn surrendered it to defendant no.1. This story has already been found to be unreliable and not proved. There is admittedly no rent receipt issued after the death of original tenant and no rent ever alleged to be demanded from Shahzad. It is hard to believe that Shahzad, as per defendant no. 1, was in possession of suit shop for those 7 years from 1997 to 2004 & no rent was ever demanded from him. The alleged possession of Shahzad in the suit shop thus becomes doubtful. Further, DW-2 in his testimony dated 29.08.2012 has deposed that Mohd. Shahzad has been doing his business in Meena Bazar area for the last several years prior to the year 2004 which is his main place of Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 14 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014 business. Thus, all these circumstance show that Mohd. Shahzad was never in possession of the suit shop after the death of Wali Mohd. and on the basis of above observations, naturally the pointer in all preponderance of probabilities turn in favour of plaintiff.
35. It is pertinent to note that plaintiff/PW-1 in her testimony clearly named Mohd. Yamin as the person on whose asking & assurance she handed over possession of the suit shop for its reconstruction. But defendant no.1 did not examine the said person Mohd. Yamin as a witness despite the fact that he was Mutawali & had signed the W.S.. Rather defendant no.1 put strange questions to plaintiff/PW-1 as to whether she had seen any document regarding Mohd. Yamin being Mutawali or secretary, thus itself doubting its Mutawali said Mohd. Yamin.
36. DW-1 in his testimony admitted that Masjid & other shops including the suit shop were in a dilapidated condition in the year 2004 and that defendant no.1 carried out renovation except for the suit shop. The averment of plaint that defendant no. 1 wanted to reconstruct the mosque & the shop therefore gains credence by this testimony of DW-1. Thus, in all probabilities it is concluded that plaintiff handed over possession of suit shop to defendant no.1 for reconstruction and as admittedly the possession at present is with defendant no.1 the natural inference is that defendant no.1 did not return back the suit shop to plaintiff on her asking. Plaintiff may not have been able to prove the relinquishment of tenancy rights by other legal heirs in her favour for want of any documentary evidence or any witness or for not making them parties to the suit, nevertheless, she in the capacity of a joint tenant certainly possesses the right to file the present suit to recover possession of the suit shop and as observed in the findings and discussion in the foregoing paras, Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 15 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014 the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit shop as described in site plan Ex. PW-1/1.
37. Defendant no.1 has also failed to prove that plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands.
38. Plaintiff has also claimed permanent injunction to restrain defendants from giving/handing over suit shops third party. It has already been observed that plaintiff is entitled to possession. Plaintiff has alleged threats against the defendant. In view of the nature of defence adopted by defendant and its failure to prove the same, it becomes all the more necessary to protect the rights of the plaintiff and therefore the relief of permanent injunction is necessary to prevent defendants from giving the suit shop to any third person except without first handing it over to the plaintiff & then recovering it by legal means.
Consequently, issues no. 3, 4, 5 & 5 (A) are accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff & against defendants.
39. ISSUE No. 66. Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD Admittedly the suit shop was a tenanted one and since its possession is being claimed by a tenant against the landlord, valuation at annual rent as per Section 7 (xi) Court Fees Act is correct. Issue is thus decided in favour of plaintiff & against defendants.
RELIEF In view of the findings on all issues, the present suit is decreed for possession in favour of plaintiff & against defendants in respect of suit shop Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 16 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014 no. 2731, Masjid Haji Abdul Hakim, Chhoti Baradari, Ballimaran, Delhi as described in red in site plan Ex. PW-1/1. Defendants are also restrained from transferring or giving the suit shop to any third person except first after giving its possession to the plaintiff and then recovering it through legal means.
Cost of the suit are also awarded in favour of plaintiff . Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open court on 22.11.2014 ) (Pranjal Aneja) CJ-06/Central Tis Hazari Courts Suit No. 318/14 Nasreen Begum Vs. Muntazama Committee Page No. 17 of 17 Dated: 22.11.2014