Delhi District Court
Mohd. Ashraf vs Mehtab Alam on 13 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF ADJ07, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, DELHI
Presided By : Sh. Jay Thareja, DHJS
Civil Suit No:7555/2016
Mohd. Ashraf
S/o. Mohd. Aslam
R/o. 170, Gali Gadariya
Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi110013
... Plaintiff
Versus
Mehtab Alam
S/o. Late Wahajul Haque
R/o. 169, FF, Gali Gadariya
Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi110013
...Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AND
MESNE PROFITS/DAMAGES
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 06.08.2015
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 28.08.2021
DATE OF DECISION : 13.09.2021
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant seeking two reliefs viz. (a) recovery of possession of first floor, second floor, third floor and terrace of property no. 169, Gali Gadariya Wali, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi13, as shown in red colour in site plan, filed along with plaint of this suit (henceforth 'suit property') and (b) recovery of pendentelite and future mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs.1,500/ per day. The exact prayer made by the plaintiff, in the plaint of Civil Suit No.7555/2016 Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.1 of 17 this suit, is reproduced below: "In view of the facts and circumstances submitted hereinabove, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass a decree:
(a) For recovery of possession of entire property bearing no. 169, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor with terrace, Gali Gadariya Wali, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi13 (specifically shown in red colour in site plan annexed) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant or his family members, relations, representatives, assignees, attorneys, agents etc. or any person(s) acting for, in the name and on behalf of defendant.
(b) For recovery of Mesne Profits/Damages @ Rs.1,500/ (One thousand and five hundred only) per day for unauthorized use and occupation by defendant or his family members, relations, representatives, assignees, attorneys, agents etc. or any person(s) acting for, in the name and on behalf of defendant of the aforesaid "Suit Property" till vacating and handling over the actual, physical possession of the "Suit property" w.e.f. the filing of the present suit till the possession of the "Suit Property" is taken by Civil Suit No.7555/2016 Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.2 of 17 the plaintiff. Requisite court fees for relief of recovery of Mesne Profits, Damages, for unauthorized use and occupation of defendant qua the "Suit Property" would be paid at the time of decree.
(c) Any other order or relief(a) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the interest of justice."
2. In order to justify the grant of the aforesaid reliefs/prayer, the plaintiff has interalia pleaded in the plaint of this suit that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of entire property no. 169, Gali Gadariya Wali, Basti Hazarat Nizamuddin, New Delhi13 (henceforth 'property no. 169'); that the plaintiff has purchased property no. 169, from its previous owners vide registered sale deed dated 13.05.2015; that the previous owners of property no. 169 were/are running a business/restaurant in the name of 'Dastar KhawaneKarim' in the locality of Basti Hazarat Nizamuddin, New Delhi13; that when the previous owners of property no. 169 had purchased property no. 169 on 14.12.1989, it was in a dilapidated condition and only had a ground floor; that the previous owners of the property no. 169 had reconstructed it from the ground floor to the third floor with a terrace, from their own funds; that the previous owners of property no. 169 had regularly paid house tax qua the said property; that in time, Sh. Moinuddin, the son of the previous owners of property no.
Civil Suit No.7555/2016Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.3 of 17 169 had started running his office from the ground floor of the said property; that the remaining portion of property no. 169 viz. first floor, second floor, third floor with terrace, was being used by the employees working at the restaurant, 'Dastar KhawaneKarim' (henceforth 'Karims'), for the purpose of changing uniform and resting for few hours; that the defendant was one of the employees working at the restaurant, Karims; that since, the defendant belonged to Bihar, he was permitted by the previous owners of property no. 169 to gratuitously live at the first floor of the said property; that in April 2012, Sh. Moinuddin, son of the previous owners of property no. 169, had requested the defendant to vacate the first floor of the said property but the defendant had sought time to find a suitable accommodation, nearby; that the said request of the defendant was accepted by Sh. Moinuddin, son of the previous owners of property no. 169; that in time, Sh. Moinuddin, son of the previous owners of property no. 169 had found that the defendant had occupied the entire first floor, second floor, third floor with terrace of the said property, which is the suit property; that upon finding out about the said illegal activity of the defendant, Sh. Moinuddin, son of the previous owners of property no. 169, had requested the defendant to immediately vacate the suit property; that thereafter, Sh. Moinuddin, son of the previous owner of property no. 169, had got occupied with a strike of the employees working at the restaurant, Karims; that on 03.09.2012 and 30.01.2013, Mrs. Saira Begum, one of the coowners of property no. 169 and mother of Sh. Moinuddin, had lodged complaints with the SHO, PS Hazarat Nizamuddin, West regarding the illegal occupation of the suit property, by the defendant; that in 2013, the defendant had filed a suit viz. CS No. Civil Suit No.7555/2016 Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.4 of 17 01/13, Sh. Mehtab Alam v BSES and Sh. Moinuddin Ahmed, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Saket Courts, Delhi seeking injunctions to the effect that BSES be directed to install an electricity connection in the name of the defendant at the suit property and Sh. Moinuddin Ahmed, be restrained from interfering in installation of an electricity connection in the name of the defendant at the suit property; that the application filed by the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908 in the said suit was dismissed by the Ld. Administrative Civil Judge, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, Delhi, by observing that the defendant was a person, who having intruded into the said property, is now claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property, by adverse possession; that the said suit itself was dismissed by the Ld. Administrative Civil Judge, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, Delhi vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2014, by interalia observing that the defendant was an intruder qua the suit property; that after legally buying the property no. 169 from the previous owners, the plaintiff had served a legal notice dated 07.07.2015 upon the defendant, directing him to vacate the suit property within 7 days; that despite service of the legal notice dated 07.07.2015, the defendant had not vacated the suit property and that as such, the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant, (a) possession of the suit property and (b) pendentelite and future mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs.1,500/ per day.
3. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues of this suit, the defendant has contested this suit by filing his written statement. In order to contest this suit, the defendant has interalia pleaded in his Civil Suit No.7555/2016 Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.5 of 17 written statement that the plaintiff does not have the locus standi to seek the reliefs, sought by way of this suit; that the plaintiff has not properly valued this suit for the purpose of courtfees and jurisdiction; that the plaintiff has not paid adequate courtfees; that this suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties viz. the other employees working at the restaurant, Karims, who are coowners and sharing the possession of the suit property with the defendant; that the registered sale deed dated 13.05.2015 is a fabricated document, which does not confer ownership rights qua property no. 169, in favour of the plaintiff; that the said fact can be deduced from the abstinence of the alleged previous owners of property no. 169, from filing a suit for possession against the defendant and from the failure of the plaintiff to file the previous title documents qua the property no. 169, in this Court; that the defendant is the owner of the suit property by virtue of adverse possession; that the registered sale deed dated 13.05.2015 has been fabricated only to circumvent the rights of the defendant qua the suit property; that the property no. 169 was built brick by brick, by the employees working at the restaurant, Karims, on a vacant piece of land; that the owners of the restaurant, Karims, had fraudulently taken possession of the ground floor of property no. 169, by promising to provide electricity; that the employees working at the restaurant, Karims, had agreed to the said fraudulent proposal of the owners of the restaurant, Karims, due to loyalty; that the condition of property no. 169, is such that it cannot be used for running a office and it can only be utilized for keeping goods; that the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2014, passed by Ld. Administrative Civil Judge, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, Delhi in CS No. 01/13, Sh. Mehtab Alam v BSES Civil Suit No.7555/2016 Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.6 of 17 and Sh. Moinuddin Ahmed, are perverse; that the defendant has not been able to challenge the said judgment and decree dated 29.10.2014 due to penury; that the defendant is in possession of the suit property, in his own right and that in the light of the genuineness of the defence of the defendant, this suit should be dismissed.
4. In the replication, the plaintiff has traversed the contents of the written statement of the defendant, made the necessary denials and reiterated the contents of the plaint. Also, the plaintiff has denied that the employees working at the restaurant, Karims, had built property no. 169 on a vacant piece of land and that the ground floor of the property no. 169 was fraudulently taken by owners of the restaurant, Karims.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by a Ld. Predecessor Judge, on 03.01.2019: "1. Whether the present suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of courtfee? OPD
2. Whether the defendant alongwith coworkers of Dastar KhawaneKarim are the owners of the suit property? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of suit property i.e. 169, Gali Gadariya Wali, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi, as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Civil Suit No.7555/2016 Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.7 of 17 mesne profits, if so, at what rate and from what period? OPP
5. Relief
6. During the trial of this suit, only one witness viz. PW1 Mohd. Ashraf was examined in support of the case of the plaintiff. Also, during the trial of this suit, the right of the defendant to lead evidence was closed, on 26.03.2021 because despite grant of due opportunity to lead evidence, on 15.02.2020, 17.03.2020 and 26.03.2021, the defendant had not led any evidence. The testimony of PW1 Mohd. Ashraf is not being discussed, at this stage of this judgment, for the sake of brevity.
7. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, I had heard Sh. M. Sufian Siddiqui, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff, in the presence of Sh. Firoz Ahmed, Ld. Advocate for the defendant, on 28.08.2021. The issue wise findings, in this suit, are as follows:
ISSUE NO.1
8. In respect of this issue, there is no clarity regarding the case of the defendant because in paragraph 3 of the preliminary objections pleaded in the written statement, the defendant has not explained the exact error in paragraph 22 of the plaint of this suit, where the plaintiff has valued this suit for the purpose of courtfees and jurisdiction. Nevertheless, in order to satisfy judicial consciousness, I have examined paragraph 22 of the plaint of this suit, in light of the provisions of the Civil Suit No.7555/2016 Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.8 of 17 Courtfees Act, 1870 and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. Upon such examination, I have found (a) that the plaintiff has properly valued the relief of possession, sought by way of this suit, for the purpose of court fees, as per Section 7(v) of the Courtfees Act, 1870 and for the purpose of jurisdiction, as per Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887; (b) that the value of Rs.18,00,000/ given by the plaintiff to the relief of possession, both for the purpose of courtfees and jurisdiction, is in accordance with the value of the suit property, as stated in the registered sale deed dated 13.05.2015, Ex.PW1/B(OSR); (c) that strictusensu, in paragraph 22 of the plaint of this suit, the plaintiff was/is not required to value the relief of pendentelite and future mesne profits/damages because in the second prayer, made in the plaint of this suit, the plaintiff has undertaken to pay the additional courtfees qua the said relief, at the time of passing of the decree; (d) that as such, only upon determination of the claim of pendentelite and future mesne profits/damages made by the plaintiff, by this Court, the plaintiff will be required to furnish additional courtfees, as per Section 11 of the Courtfees Act, 1870 and
(e) that the courtfees of Rs.20,000/, furnished by the plaintiff, along with plaint of this suit, is adequate, in praesenti.
9. In view of the aforesaid, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is held that the plaintiff has properly valued this suit for the purpose of courtfees and jurisdiction. Also, it is held that the courtfees of Rs.20,000/, furnished by the plaintiff, along with plaint of this suit, is adequate, in praesenti.
Civil Suit No.7555/2016Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.9 of 17 ISSUE NO. 2
10. In respect of this issue, the case of the defendant is that along with other employees working at the restaurant, Karims, he is the owner of property no. 169 (which includes the suit property) by virtue of adverse possession and alternatively, by virtue of the fact that along with the other employees working at the restaurant, Karims, he had built property no. 169 brick by brick, by utilizing own funds. Per contra, the case of the plaintiff is that by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 13.05.2015, Ex.PW1/B(OSR), executed in his favour by Mrs. Saira Begum and Mrs. Samina Wasim, he is the absolute owner of property no. 169 (which includes the suit property) and that the claim of the defendant that he is the owner of the suit property, is hit by resjudicata because in the unchallenged judgment and decree dated 29.10.2014, passed by Ld. Administrative Civil Judge, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, Delhi in CS No. 01/13, Sh. Mehtab Alam v BSES and Sh. Moinuddin Ahmed, it has already been held that the defendant is not the owner of the suit property, by virtue of adverse possession or otherwise.
11. In order to prove his case qua this issue, the defendant has not led any evidence.
12. In order to prove his case qua this issue, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 Mohd. Ashraf. During examinationinchief, the plaintiff viz. PW1 Mohd. Ashraf has deposed in line with the plaint of this suit and tendered in evidence, the site plan, Ex.PW1/A, the registered sale deed dated 13.05.2015, Ex.PW1/B(OSR), the plaint of Civil Suit No.7555/2016 Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.10 of 17 CS No. 01/13, Sh. Mehtab Alam v BSES and Sh. Moinuddin Ahmed (henceforth 'CS No.01/13'), Mark A, the Order dated 15.04.2013 passed by Ld. Administrative Civil Judge, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, Delhi in CS No. 01/13, Mark B, the judgment dated 29.10.2014 passed by Ld. Administrative Civil Judge, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, Delhi in CS No. 01/13, Mark C, legal notice, Ex.PW1/C and postal receipt, Ex.PW1/D. Despite grant of due opportunity, the defendant has not crossexamined PW1 Mohd. Ashraf.
13. Upon examining the probative value of the aforesaid unrebutted evidence led by the plaintiff qua this issue, I find that this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because of multiple reasons. Firstly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because the unchallenged registered sale deed dated 13.05.2015, Ex.PW1/B(OSR), clearly reflects that the plaintiff has legally obtained the title qua property no. 169 (which includes the suit property). In this regard, it is noteworthy that neither by way of any counterclaim made in this suit nor by way of any other suit, the defendant has ever challenged the registered sale deed dated 13.05.2015, Ex.PW1/B(OSR) and that on account of the said failure of the defendant, the registered sale deed dated 13.05.2015, Ex.PW1/B(OSR) has obtained finality interse the plaintiff and the defendant.1 1 In this context, reference is craved to judgment in Lata Chauhan v L.S. Bisht, 2010 (117) DRJ 715, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi interalia relying upon Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramti Devi (Smt.) v Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 198 has held that if a registered instrument is not challenged within the prescribed period of limitation, it obtains finality interse the party, in whose favor, it exists and the party, whose rights, it affects.
Civil Suit No.7555/2016Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.11 of 17
14. Secondly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because the finding recorded in the unchallenged judgment dated 29.10.2014, Mark C, passed by Ld. Administrative Civil Judge, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, Delhi in CS No. 01/13, to the effect that the defendant is not the owner of the suit property, by virtue of adverse possession or otherwise, binds the defendant. In this regard, reference is craved to the judgment in Anathula Sudhakar v P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 594, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to its previous judgments in Sulochana Amma v Narayanan Nair, (1994) 2 SCC 14, Annaimuthu Thevar v Alagammal, (2005) and Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E. Edr. v Musa Dadabhai Ummer, (2000) 3 SCC 350, has held that if in a previous suit for injunction between the parties, the question of title was directly and substantially in issue, then in a subsequent suit, the finding of title recorded in the previous suit, will bind the parties. In this case, it is apparent from the text of the unchallenged judgment dated 29.10.2014, Mark C, passed by Ld. Administrative Civil Judge, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, Delhi in CS No. 01/13 that during the proceedings of CS No. 01/13, the question of title qua the suit property was directly and substantially in issue. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that the finding recorded in the unchallenged judgment dated 29.10.2014, Mark C, passed by Ld. Administrative Civil Judge, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, Delhi in CS No. 01/13, to the effect that the defendant is not the owner of the suit property, by virtue of adverse possession or otherwise, binds the defendant.
Civil Suit No.7555/2016Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.12 of 17
15. Thirdly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because even if it is believed that finding recorded in the unchallenged judgment dated 29.10.2014, Mark C, passed by Ld. Administrative Civil Judge, SouthEast District, Saket Courts, Delhi in CS No. 01/13, to the effect that the defendant is not the owner of the suit property, by virtue of adverse possession or otherwise, does not bind the defendant, the plea of the defendant that along with other employees working at the restaurant, Karims, he is the owner of property no. 169 (which includes the suit property) by virtue of adverse possession and the alternative plea of the defendant that along with other employees working at the restaurant, Karims, he is the owner of property no. 169 (which includes the suit property) by virtue of the fact that along with the other employees working at the restaurant, Karims, he had built property no. 169 brick by brick, by utilizing their own funds, are mutually inconsistent pleas. In this regard, reference is craved to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manmohan Bedi v Rakesh Kumar Guria, (2018) SCC OnLine Del 9948, wherein, relying upon the judgments in Mohan Lal v Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639, PT Munichikanna Reddy v Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59, LN Aswathama v P. Prakash (2009) 13 SCC 229, Pushpa Rathi v Jugnu Bansal 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10881 and Karnataka Board of Wakf v Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779, it has been observed that the plea of adverse possession cannot coexist with the plea of lawful possession.
16. Fourthly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because the plea of the defendant that along with other employees working at the restaurant, Karims, he is Civil Suit No.7555/2016 Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.13 of 17 the owner of property no. 169 (which includes the suit property) by virtue of adverse possession is per se meritless as in the written statement, the defendant has nowhere identified the original owner of the property no. 169, which is a sine qua non for a person claiming to have become the owner of a property, by virtue of adverse possession.
17. Fifthly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because the alternative plea of the defendant that along with other employees working at the restaurant, Karims, he is the owner of property no. 169 (which includes the suit property) by virtue of the fact that he along with the other employees working at the restaurant, Karims, had built property no. 169 brick by brick, by utilizing their own funds has not been backed up by any documentary evidence viz. invoices reflecting purchase of building material by the defendant and his alleged compatriots, invoices of any contractors, whose services were taken by the defendant and his alleged compatriots, while building the property no. 169, brick by brick etc.
18. Lastly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant because the defendant has not led any evidence whatsoever, to prove his case, qua this issue.
19. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is held that the defendant along with other employees working at the restaurant, Karims, is not the owner of property no. 169 (which includes the suit property) by virtue of adverse possession or otherwise.
Civil Suit No.7555/2016Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.14 of 17 ISSUE NO.3
20. While deciding issue no.2, it has been held that the defendant along with other employees working at the restaurant, Karims, is not the owner of property no. 169 (which includes the suit property) by virtue of adverse possession or otherwise and it has been observed that by virtue of the unchallenged registered sale deed dated 13.05.2015, Ex.PW1/B(OSR), the plaintiff has legally obtained the title qua property no. 169 (which includes the suit property). Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant, the possession of the suit property.
ISSUE NO.4
21. In the plaint of this suit, the plaintiff has nowhere expressly pleaded that at the time of institution of this suit, the suit property could have fetched an income of Rs.1,500/ per day. During his testimony before this Court, the plaintiff viz. PW1 Mohd. Ashraf has nowhere deposed that the suit property could have fetched or can fetch an income of Rs.1,500/ per day. In my view, without any pleading 2 and without any 2 In this regard, reference is craved to paragraph 32I of the judgment in Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. v Seema Bhatia, (2019) SCC OnLine Del 9554, where the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that in a suit, no evidence beyond pleadings can be led and no decision on the basis thereof, can be rendered. The exact observation made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is reproduced below:
"...It has rightly been held in Bhagwati Prasad v Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735, Ram Sarup Gupta v Bishun Narain Inter College, (1987) 2 SCC 555, D.M. Deshpande v Janardhan Kashinath Kadam, (1998) 8 SCC 315, Bachhaj Nahar v Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491 and Transformative Learning Civil Suit No.7555/2016 Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.15 of 17 evidence to the effect that the suit property could have fetched or can fetch an income of Rs.1,500/ per day, no relief of recovery of pendente lite mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs.1,500/ per day, can be granted to the plaintiff.
22. In view of the aforesaid, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. It is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover from the defendant, pendentelite and future mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs.1,500/ per day.
RELIEF
23. In view of the aforesaid findings, this suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant, the possession of the suit property viz. first floor, second floor, third floor and terrace of property no. 169, Gali Gadariya Wali, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi13, as shown in red colour in site plan, Ex.PW1/A.
24. Before parting with this judgment, it is clarified that since, the grant of the relief of recovery of pendentelite and future mesne profits/damages at rate of Rs.1500/ per day, sought by the plaintiff, in this suit, has been declined primarily on account of the failure of the plaintiff to make proper pleadings qua the said relief, in the plaint of this suit, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a fresh suit against the Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v Pawajot Kaur Baweja, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9229 that in a suit no evidence beyond pleadings can be led or read and no decision on the basis thereof rendered."Civil Suit No.7555/2016
Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.16 of 17 defendant, seeking mesneprofits/damages qua unauthorized use of the suit property, provided such suit, falls within the parameters of the law, explained by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Santosh Arora v M. L. Arora, (2014) SCC OnLine Del 3005. Also, it is clarified that the plea of the defendant that this suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties viz. the other employees working at the restaurant, Karims, who are co owners and sharing the possession of the suit property with the defendant has not been factored in this adjudication because in the absence of any names and important details of such 'other employees', the said plea appears to be bogus and unworthy of any indulgence. Lastly, it is clarified that in my view, the entire defence presented by the defendant in this suit, is per se meritless because it does not comply with requirements of law, identified in paragraphs 68 to 71 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Fernandes v Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370.3
25. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed JAY by JAY THAREJA
THAREJA Date: 2021.09.13
16:30:36 +0530
Announced in open Court (Jay Thareja)
today on 13.09.2021 Ld. ADJ07, South East District,
Saket Courts/Delhi
3 The said judgment has been mentioned by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Santosh Kumar v Col. Satsangi's Kiran Memorial Aipeccs Educational Complex and Anr., (2018) SCC OnLine Del 12089, wherein the facts were similar to the facts of this case.
Civil Suit No.7555/2016Mohd. Ashraf v Mehtab Alam Page No.17 of 17