Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) As far as this Ea is concerned, it is the say of the applicants that they are in bonafide occupation of the shops in question since 1987; that the shop of the Dh is situated at 10 paces away from the premises in question; that the applicants spent money to renovate the shops in question and made the same habitable after considerable expenses and that in 1988, applicant No.l entered into an agreement with Delhi Consumer Cooperative Whole Sale Stores Limited, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The say of the opponents is that the application is a sheer abuse of process of law; that the applicants are guilty of suppression of facts and have played fraud on the court; that the applicants have no locus standi to move the present application as they are sheer tresspassers; that the opponent-DH filed suit No.l411/83 for possession of four shops, viz. Shop No-211,212,213 and 214 and the Central Hall having two enterances; that the said suit was originally filed in the year 1980 in the court of District Judge and thereafter, the same stood transferred to this court; that the six defendants, who were in possession of the shops at the time of filing of the suit were imp leaded as the defendants; that the decree for possession came to be passed against all the defendants/JDs; that in execution of the said ejectment decree, the decree "holder went to take possession on 30.11.94; that the bailiff had firstly taken the possession of the Central Hall and handed over the same to the representative of the D.H. but the applicants, later on, broke open the lock, which was applied on the Central Hall by the D.H. and trespassed upon the premises in question; that these applicants filed similar application i.e. Ea 336/94 stating that they have come to know about decree on 30.11.94 and prayed for stay of execution of the warrants of possession which this court was not inclined to grant; that thereafter, concealing the fact of Ea 336/94 and the order passed therein, the applicants have filed the present Ea and obtained exparte order; that the applicants are not in lawful occupation of the premises- nor they do have any independent right and that they have not been inducted by the decree holder at any point of time.

(5) As far as this Ea is concerned, it is the say of the applicant that he is in bonafide occupation of the shop in question from May 1981; that the shop of the Dh is situated at 10 paces away from the premises in question; that the applicant spent considerable amount and got the shop renovated and has been doing the business of running beauty parlous therein in her independent right. As against this, the say of the opponent is that the application is a sheer abuse of process of law; that the applicant is guilty of suppression of facts and have played fraud on the court; that the applicant has no locus standi to move the present application as the applicant is sheer tresspasser; that the opponent-DH filed suit No-1411/83 for possession of four shops, viz. Shop No-211,212,213 and 214 and the Central Hall having two enterances; that the said suit was originally filed in the year 1980 in the court of District Judge and thereafter, the same stood transferred to this court; that the six defendants, who were in possession of the shops at the time of filing of the suit were imp leaded as the defendants; that the decree for possession came to be passed against all the defendants/JDs; that in execution of .the said ejectment decree, the decree holder went to take possession on 30.11.94; that the bailiff had firstly taken the possession of the Central Hall and handed over the same to the representative of the D.H. but the applicant, later on, broke open the lock, which was applied on the Central Hall by the D.H. and tress- passed upon the premises in question; that these applicant filed similar application i.e. Ea 336/94 stating that he have come to know about decree on 30.11.94 and prayed for stay of execution of the warrants of possession which this court was not inclined to grant; that thereafter, concealing the fact of Ea 336/94 and the order passed therein, the applicant have filed the present Ea and obtained exparte order; that the applicant is not in lawful occupation of the premises nor he do have any independent right and that he have not been inducted by the decree holder at any point of time.