Delhi District Court
Sh. Tilak Singh S/O Sh. Munshi Lal vs Sh. Ravi Goel S/O Sh. V. N. Goel on 11 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SNIGDHA SARVARIA, CIVIL JUDGE,
CENTRAL05 TIS HAZARI COURTS , DELHI
Suit No.356/2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Tilak Singh S/o Sh. Munshi Lal,
R/o Jhuggi no. CN767,
Near Delhi Jal Board Store,
Mir Dard Lane, Minto Road,
New Delhi110002 ....Plaintiff
Versus.
Sh. Ravi Goel S/o Sh. V. N. Goel,
R/o Flat no. 19, Sita Ram Apartment,
Patpar Ganj, Delhi. ......Defendant
Date of Institution: 29.05.2012
Date of Reserving for Judgment: 09.07.2014
Date of Judgment : 11.08.2014
SUIT FOR PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT: ( Exparte)
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall decide a suit for Permanent & Mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the plaintiff are that the plaintiff is residing with his family since 2000 and in possession of Jhuggi No. CN767, Near Delhi Jal Board Store, Mir Dard Road, Minto Road, Suit No. 356/2014 Page No. 1 of 10 New Delhi. The plaintiff is a pump operator upon a pump situated at Mirdard Road, Minto Road, Delhi Jal Board Store, New Delhi, through contractor Sh. Ravi Goel/defendant from 17.03.2004 and the plaintiff has continuously provided the service upon the said pump till filing of the present suit without any complaint by any one. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has received the handsome salary from the defendant according to the labour law. The plaintiff has provided his service to Delhi Jal Board through a contractor and the plaintiff also doing the overtime in respect of which the plaintiff has also received extra payment for this extra work throughout the course of he employment with the defendant. The plaintiff always continue to work hard honestly, sincerely and diligently the duty. It is further submitted that the defendant is the registered contractor in Delhi Jal Board and the defendant had appointed to the plaintiff as per the guidelines of the Labour Law. It is further submitted that on 05.03.2012 at about 12:00 A.M. The defendant alongwith other gunda elements namely Sh. Shoib Iqbal, who is called himself to the M.L.A. and Idrish and Mohttram with the connivance of local police of P.S. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. The defendant has given the threat to the plaintiff to demolish and dispossession the plaintiff from the suit property, with the statement that the plaintiff and his family members had illegally occupied the Jhuggi and they also stated that, "You Suit No. 356/2014 Page No. 2 of 10 vacate the suit property, otherwise you face the dire consequences". It is further submitted that on 22.04.2012 and 29.04.2012 the defendant along with his gunda elements again reached the suit property and threatened to spoil the life of the plaintiff and his family members, otherwise you hand over the peaceful possession of the suit property to the defendant. On 26.04.2012 the plaintiff had also made a complaint in respect of the threat given by the defendant before the higher police official i.e. The Commissioner of Police, S.H.O. of P.S. I.P Estate, and Chowki Incharge, L.N.J.P Hospital, New Delhi and also sent the demand notice under labour law dated 28.04.2012 to the defendant along with copy to Lt. Governor of Delhi, Labour Secretary etc. The said notice has also served the defendant and the defendant had given a false and frivolous reply of the said notice through his counsel Sh. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, Chamber No. E511, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, by way of Speed Post with the signed of the defendant. In this reply the defendant had admittedly partly the facts of the legal notice of the plaintiff and partly denied with the ulterior motives. It is further submitted that on 15.05.2012 at 12.30 P.M. The defendant came to the suit property along with his musslemen and started to beating the plaintiff mercilessly and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property by thrown the household articles, but at the time the nephew of the Suit No. 356/2014 Page No. 3 of 10 plaintiff, his wife and children are present there at that time and due to this reason the defendant could not succeed to achieve his nefarious goal. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff.
3. On the other hand the defendant in his WS has contended that plaintiff has concealed the true, material and relevant facts and has not come to this court with clean hands. Plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the present suit. Also, no cause of action has ever arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for filling the present suit. The plaintiff has no personal right, title or interest in the suit property and/or in the relief claimed. Further, the suit of the plaintiff has neither been properly valued for the purpose court fees and jurisdiction nor the proper and requisite court fees has been paid. It is further contended that the suit is bad for misjoinder of proper and necessary party. The defendant is neither owner nor the landlord of the suit property. It is submitted that the suit property belong to Delhi Jal Board and the defendant has no concerned with the suit property and the Delhi Jal Board is the necessary party and same is necessary for proper adjudication. It is further submitted that the defendant is the registered contractor of Delhi Jal Board and the defendant never appointed the plaintiff as Pump operator and the plaintiff has no concerned with Delhi Jal Board, but the defendant has appointed the plaintiff as daily wages. When so many Suit No. 356/2014 Page No. 4 of 10 complaints regarding cheating, stealing and misbehaving and quarreling behavior of the plaintiff received by my client, then on 03.04.2012, the defendant terminate the service of your client. It is further stated that the defendant came to know that there are many cases/complaint are pending against the plaintiff regarding ill act. After termination of his daily wages job the plaintiff also illegally occupied the open shed/ jhuggi and started running a Tea Shop, in which some valuable articles are lying of defendant and Delhi Jal Board work when the defendant raised objection, the plaintiff had started quarreling with the defendant and also blackmailing the defendant by demanding Rs. 3 lacs and also extended threats if you will not pay the aforesaid amount to me, then I will file the false and cases in Labour court and in this regard the defendant gave a written complaint to concern police officials on 04/05/2012. It is submitted that the above said Jhuggi (suit property) is the open shed where the defendant and Delhi Jal Board used to store there goods/articles like, pipes, on 28.06.2012, the suit property i.e. Jhuggi /open shed/Tea shop has been demolished by the MCD with the assistance of concerned police officials and in this regard the photographs and letter dated 29/06/2012 is annexed herewith. It is further submitted that the plaintiff again started running tea shop on some other place on the same land of the Delhi Jal Board with the Suit No. 356/2014 Page No. 5 of 10 help of antisocial elements. It is further submitted that on 30/06/2011, some articles like pipes of the defendant has been stolen from the suit property and in this regard a complainant was made by the defendant on 02.07.2012. Further the defendant denied all the allegations of the plaintiff which are made in his plaint and prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4. The plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant. In his replication the plaintiff has reaffirmed the contents in the plaint and denied all the allegation made by the defendant in their written statement and further submitted that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed.
5. From the pleading of the parties following issues were framed vide order dt. 23032013.
i) Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? OPD
ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
iii) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of proper and necessary party? OPD
iv) Whether the plaintiff has not come before this court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD
v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent Suit No. 356/2014 Page No. 6 of 10 injunction, as prayed for? OPP
vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
vii) Relief.
6. To prove his case plaintiff has examined himself and Smt. Guddi Devi as PW1 & PW2. PW1 has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. PW2 was simply examined in chief. In his affidavit PW1 has reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint and relied upon the following documents:
i) Site Plan is Ex. PW1/1.
ii) Complaint made to the police is Ex. PW1/2.
Iii) Legal notice dt. 28042012 is Ex. PW1/3.
iv) Copy of Election I card is Ex. PW1/4.
7. On the other hand the defendant stopped appearing in the present case and was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 13122012.
8. I have heard Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record & gone through the relevant provision of law.
9. My issue wise finding is as under:
10. Issue No. 1 Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant? OPD The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant but the defendant has neither led any evidence in this regard nor otherwise Suit No. 356/2014 Page No. 7 of 10 proved this issue. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11. Issue no. 2 Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant but the defendant has neither led any evidence in this regard nor otherwise proved this issue. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
12.Issue no. 3 Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of proper and necessary party? OPD The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant but the defendant has neither led any evidence in this regard nor otherwise proved this issue. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
13. Issue no. 4 Whether the plaintiff has not come before this court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant but the defendant has neither led any evidence in this regard nor otherwise proved this issue. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Suit No. 356/2014 Page No. 8 of 10
14. Issue no. 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP Issue No. 6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP Issue nos 5 and 6 being interrelated are being taken up and decided together.
The case of the plaintiff is that he is residing with his family since 2000 in jhuggi no. 767, Near Delhi Jal Board Store, Mir Dard Road, minto Road, New Delhi and the defendant has on various occasions threatened the plaintiff of dispossessing him from the suit property.
15.The defendant in the written statement has admitted that the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit property, however, has also stated that the plaintiff has entered in the suit property illegally.
16.Since, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit property and the defendant has already made a statement in the court on 16/7/2012 that he will not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit premises without due process of law and will not interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of the suit premises by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction.
These issues are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Suit No. 356/2014 Page No. 9 of 10
17.Relief:
In view of the foregoing discussion, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant is restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property being jhuggi no. CN 767, Near Delhi Jal Board Store, Mir Dard Road, Minto Road, New Delhi as shown in the red colour in the suit property.
Further, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful use and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property being jhuggi no. CN 767, Near Delhi Jal Board Store, Mir Dard Road, minto Road, New Delhi as shown in the red colour in the suit property.
There are no orders as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced & signed in the ( Snigdha Sarvaria)
open court on 11.08.2014 Civil Judge/Central05/Delhi
Suit No. 356/2014 Page No. 10 of 10