Delhi District Court
Vijay Kumar vs Jitender @ Jeetu And Anr on 16 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI SINGH
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SOUTH
DISTRICT COURTS COMPLEX, SAKET, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ no. 1091/2022
CNR No.DLST03-001891-2022
1. Vijay Kumar
S/o Sh. Pyare Lal
R/o 1240, Gali no.37, Ground Floor,
DDA Flats, Madangir,
New Delhi-110062
........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Jitender @ Jeetu
S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar
2. Smt. Nisha Kannojia
W/o Sh. Jitender @ Jeetu
Both R/o 1240, Gali no.37, First Floor,
DDA Flats, Madangir,
New Delhi-110062
.......Defendants
1. Date of Institution : 18.10.2022
2. Date of Judgment : 16.10.2025
3. Decision : Allowed.
CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 1 of 16
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.10.16
16:54:20
+0530
SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Succinctly, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of property bearing number 1240, Block No. D, Gali No. 37, DDA Flats, Madangir, New Delhi-110062, admeasuring 42 ½ square yards (hereinafter called the property), which was allotted to him by Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called DDA) vide allotment letter bearing no. F29 (206) 74/HB, dated 27.03.1974. The plaintiff submits that the property was later converted to free hold vide Conveyance Deed dated 24.06.1998 executed his favour by DDA bearing registration number 4509, Book No.1, Volume 1494, Page 129-130. The plaintiff submits that he built up the property into a building and he, along with his wife is occupying the ground floor, which has two rooms, whereas, the defendants are residing on the first floor of property bearing number 1240, Block No. D, Gali No. 37, DDA Flats, Madangir, New Delhi-110062 (hereinafter called the suit property). He further submits that on the third floor, his second son used to reside with his wife but due to their conduct, he filed a civil suit bearing number 735/2018 which was decreed in his favour and they both vacated the said floor.
2. As per the plaintiff, he permitted the defendants to reside in the suit property out of love and affection, as permissive users but eventually, both the defendants started harassing, torturing, humiliating and threatening the plaintiff and his wife only to grab the suit property. It is alleged that the defendants physically assault the plaintiff and his wife and defendant no.1 does not pay any maintenance to them and due to their conduct, he was compelled to file a police complaint before SHO, PS: Ambedkar Nagar on 03.02.2022. The CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 2 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:54:29 +0530 plaintiff submits that he disinherited the defendants and asked them to vacate the suit property but they apologized to him and requested to permit them to stay there with the condition that if they repeat any such act, plaintiff can get the suit property vacated. As per the plaintiff, out of love and affection, he again permitted them to stay at the suit property but again, after few days, the defendants started harassing and torturing him and pressurized him to transfer the suit property in the name of defendant no.1. The plaintiff then requested the defendants on 25.09.2022 to vacate the suit property as he intended to put the suit property on rent since he was not able to meet his day to day expense and medical expense of his and his wife but it is alleged that the defendants picked up quarrel with him and defendant no.2 extended threat to implicate him in false cases. The plaintiff submits that he has serious apprehension that the defendants may create third party interest in the suit property which would add on to the misery and agony of the plaintiff and his wife and therefore, prays that mandatory injunction be granted in his favour, thereby directing the defendants to vacate the suit property and, permanent injunction, restricting the defendants, their agent, associates etc to create third party interest in the suit property.
3. For cause of action, the plaintiff has explained that it last arose on 25.09.2022 when he requested the defendants to vacate the suit property but they refused to do so. For territorial jurisdiction, it is submitted that the suit property is within the jurisdiction of this Court and bot the parties also reside at the same address.
4. Summons of the suit were sent to both the defendants and they were served on both of them on 10.12.2022. Reply was not filed by defendant no.1 and therefore, on 29.08.2023, his defence was struck off. In the reply of defendant no.2, she alleged that the plaintiff is in collusion with defendant no.1 and she cannot be dispossessed from the suit property as she is in continuous CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 3 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:54:36 +0530 possession since the date of her marriage. She has also alleged that the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, while seeking recovery of possession without filing the appropriate court fee. As per the plaintiff, the suit property is not the absolute property of the plaintiff nor any conveyance deed is registered in his name and in fact, she is the victim of harassment subjected by defendant no.1, plaintiff and his wife. She also denied that the second son of the plaintiff and his wife were asked to vacate one of the floor of the property due to their misconduct and rather said that they vacated after they reached a settlement. The defendant no.2 has alleged that she is not a permissive user rather occupying the suit property as her matrimonial house and the plaintiff and his wife and defendant no1. have been trying to illegally dispossess her. As per the plaintiff, the allegation of torture, harassment etc by the plaintiff is false and rather, she is the one who has been subjected to continuous domestic violence only to dispossess her and her minor children from the suit property.
5. In replication, plaintiff reiterated the allegations made in the plaint and denied the allegations made by the defendant no.2 in the written statement and clarified that court fee filed is correct and he is also willing to pay additional court fee, if required.
ISSUES FRAMED
6. After hearing the submission of both the sides, following issues were framed vide order dated 22.11.2023:
a. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide the present suit? OPD b. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as sought in prayer clause (a)? OPP c. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 4 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:54:47 +0530 sought in prayer clause (b)? OPP d. Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of cause of action?
OPD.
EVIDENCE LEAD BY PLAINTIFF:
7. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW1/1 in consonance with the averments raised in the plaint and further relied upon the following documents:-
i. Ex.PW1/A i.e. Conveyance Deed dated 24.06.1998 (OSR). ii. Ex. PW1/B (colly) i.e. Copy of order dated 09.01.2019, decree sheet and statement of parties (OSR).
iii. Ex. PW1/C i.e. Copy of public notice dated 17.04.2013 published in Virat Vaibhav Newspaper (OSR).
iv. Ex. PW1/D i.e. Copy of complaint dated 16.05.2013 and affidavit of Vijay Kumar (OSR).
v. Ex. PW1/E i.e. Electricity bill for the month of July, 2022 and July, 2009 (copy of bill for the month of July, 2009 marked as Mark 2). vi. Ex. PW1/F i.e. payment receipts of Water bill. vii. Ex. PW1/G i.e. Complaint dated 03.02.2022 given to PS Ambedkar Nagar by the complainant Sumitra, wife of plaintiff (OSR). viii. Ex. PW1/H i.e. Site plan.
ix. Ex. PW1/I i.e. 4 photographs.
x. Mark 1 i.e. Medical records of Sumitra, wife of plaintiff and plaintiff.
8. Despite granting opportunity, defendant no.2 failed to conduct the cross examination and therefore, her right was closed on 16.05.2024. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and PE was closed.
CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 5 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:54:52 +0530
9. The defendants did not lead any evidence and on 03.08.2024, right to lead DE was also closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
10.Previously, the Ld. Predecessor passed judgment in this case on 03.09.2024 but on 13.05.2025, the Ld. SCJ had set aside the judgment with directions to decide the case afresh. Thereafter, the counsels addressed the final arguments again and the Ld. counsel for plaintiff had also filed written submissions along with two judgments:
1) Kartika Grover Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., CM Appeal no.
55358 of 2022, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
2) Aarti Sharma and Ors. Vs. Ganga Saran, CM Appeal no. 3964 of 2021, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
11.In the arguments addressed by Ld. counsel for plaintiff, he submitted that the Ld. Appellate Court overturned the judgment passed by the Ld. Predecessor on the ground that the law laid down in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra has been overruled, which was not considered by the Ld. Predecessor and there is no finding of the Court on the alleged collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and its consequent affect on the right of the defendant no.2. The Ld. counsel relied upon the written submissions filed before the Court, wherein the plaintiff explained the facts in brief; the written statement filed by defendant no.2 and the issues framed. As per the plaintiff, the onus of proof for issue no.1 and issue no.4 was on the defendant no.2 but no evidence was lead by her, whereas the plaintiff proved through his evidence that additional court fee is not required as the defendants are mere licensees. It is further explained that by way of Ex. PW1/A, the plaintiff has proved that the suit property was allotted to him by DDA and since the defendants failed to cross examine him, CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 6 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:54:58 +0530 his title is admitted. It is also submitted that defendant no.2's plea of shared household is setup as a faint plea and argument of last resort as in the reply filed by her, it can be seen that though she has alleged domestic violence but she never filed any complaint against the plaintiff before any Forum. The Ld. counsel said that the defendants are still staying in the suit property together and the alleged collusion has not been proved by defendant no.2 as she has not filed any document to show that any case is filed by her to claim her maintenance from defendant no.1 or custody but, the plaintiff on the other hand has filed complaints against the defendants. The Ld. counsel for the plaintiff said that it is not proved by the defendant no.2 that the suit property is her matrimonial house and since plaintiff was not cross examined, the averment of the plaintiff that the defendants are licensees stands proved. Per contra, the Ld. counsel for the defendant reiterated the averments made in the reply and said that the suit property is the matrimonial house of defendant no.2 and in light of collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no.1, the suit should be dismissed.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
12.I have heard the counsels for both the sides and I have also considered the record as well as the prevailing law. I shall now give my findings issue wise.
A. Issue no.1: Whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide the present suit.
a) The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant no.2 as she alleged in her reply that relief of recovery of possession is sought but the suit is undervalued, however, the defendant no.2 failed to cross examine PW1 on the said aspect and despite having the opportunity to lead DE, did not lead any evidence. In fact, if the reply of defendant no.2 is seen, the affidavit filed in CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 7 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:55:04 +0530 support of reply is not certified by the Oath Commissioner and therefore, the same is inadmissible. Though the defendant no.2 raised the allegation but she cannot be said to be bound by it as she failed to file duly certified affidavit in support of it. Even otherwise, if the said issue is seen on merit, defendant no.2 has admitted in her reply that she came into possession of the suit property soon after her marriage and she has denied the title documents of the plaintiff for want of knowledge but she has herself not filed any document to show that the plaintiff was not in de jure possession of the suit property. Thus, in such circumstance, the version of the plaintiff stands proved against her as there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Padmavati Mahajan vs Yogender Mahajan, 2008 (152) DLT 363, also covers the said aspect as the Hon'ble Court held therein "A suit for permanent and mandatory injunction can be valued by the plaintiff in his/her discretion subject to the discretion not being whimsical and the suit is not to be valued at the Market value of the property,". The conclusion being that in the absence of any cogent ground or admissible evidence, the Court cannot interfere with the valuation of the suit by the plaintiff and therefore, as per the facts of this case, since the defendant no.2 failed to prove otherwise, issue no.1 stands decided against her.
B. Issue no.2 & 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as sought in prayer clause (a), and Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as sought in prayer clause (b).
CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 8 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:55:09 +0530
a) Issue no.2 and 3 are being appreciated together as they involve a common question. As per the issue of fact, the plaintiff has sought relief of mandatory injunction seeking directions against the defendants to vacate the suit property. As per the allegation of the plaintiff, he is the owner of the suit property and he inducted the defendants as licensees out of love and affection but later, due to their acrimonious relation, he requested them to vacate the suit property but they refused to do so. The plaintiff has also alleged that the defendants threatened him, harassed him and manhandled him and his wife pursuant to which he was also compelled to file police complaints and issue a public notice disinheriting the defendants. Ex. PW1/G (OSR) is the police complaint given to SHO, PS: Ambedkar Nagar and Ex. PW1/C (OSR) is the copy of the public notice. In Ex. PW1/G (OSR), the plaintiff has alleged about the violence inflicted by the defendants. Both these documents were not objected on the mode of proof and admissibility by the defendants and since originals were produced, these documents are admissible in evidence. Further, since the defendant no.2 failed to conduct the cross examination, the documents also stand proved against her.
In addition to these two documents, the plaintiff has also filed Mark 1 (Colly) to support his allegation that he needs the suit property to take care of his and his wife's day to day expense and medical expense as, the defendant no.1 allegedly does not maintain them. Again, the said document was not objected on the mode of proof and admissibility and as defendant no.1 did not lead any defence and defendant no.2 failed to conduct the cross examination, the document stands proved against them. The consequence would be that since no proof is brought on CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 9 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.10.16 16:55:14 +0530 record by the defendants to suggest that the defendant no.1 was giving any monetary support or assistance to the plaintiff and his wife, the requirement of the plaintiff qua the suit property to support his needs cannot be objected to.
b) Next, the plaintiff has relied on Ex. PW1/A (OSR), Ex. PW1/E, Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/H to show that he is the owner of the suit property and in de jure possession. Again, as stated above, these documents have not been objected by defendant no.2 therefore, they stand proved against her. Perusal of these documents would show that Ex. PW1A (OSR) is a conveyance deed of the property which thereby corroborates the averment of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the suit property. As per the contents of this document, the plaintiff became absolute owner of the property on execution of this deed. There is no evidence on record to suggest otherwise and thus, the allegation of defendant no.2 that the plaintiff is not the owner stands disproved. Moreover, the utility bills i.e. Ex. PW1/E and Ex.
PW1/F are also issue in the name of the plaintiff which supports his averment of being in de jure possession. Had the defendants been in possession of the suit property in their own right, some document would have existed in their name. Not only the defendants failed to file any such proof but they also failed to falter the evidence of the plaintiff. As mentioned above, the defendant no.2 has admitted in her reply, which though inadmissible due to the defect in affidavit, yet is being considered in order to conclusively decide the issue that she came into possession of the suit property after her marriage which indicates that before her, the plaintiff was in de facto as CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 10 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:55:20 +0530 well as de jure possession of the suit property. In such case, due to the unwavering evidence lead by the plaintiff, the averment of the plaintiff that he was in the possession of the suit property and the allegation that the defendants were permitted to stay there as mere licensees stands proved. The consequent result would also be that principle of estoppel would apply against the defendants and they would be restrained to question or deny the licensor's/ plaintiffs title to the suit property at the time when license was granted to them.
c) One other leg of argument lead by defendant no.2 is that notice to vacate was not served on her. Perusal of the record would show that indeed, no such notice was served but the plaintiff has claimed to served a public notice through Ex. PW1/C, severing his ties with the defendants. Again, in the absence of cross examination, the evidence lead by the plaintiff remains unchallenged and unrebutted and the document stands proved.
Further, in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Raj Pal Singh Vs. Deen Dayal Kapil , the judgment of the Hon'ble Court in M/s Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr., (2011) 183 DLT 712 was considered wherein it was held that service of summon in a suit is as good as service of notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The implication being that the date on which summons were served on the defendants, it amounted to compliance of service of notice to vacate. Thus, the said argument of the defendant no.2 also does not sustain or help her cause.
CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 11 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:55:27 +0530
d) If the above discussion is carefully considered, it would show that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving his title against the defendants qua the suit property and the right of the defendants as mere licensees. Further, service of summons on the defendants amounted to service of notice u/s 106 of Transfer of property act to vacate the suit property, thereby putting them in knowledge of the intent of the plaintiff. The only thing left to be considered now is the allegation of collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. First of all, the said allegation is nothing more than a bare averment made in the written statement of defendant no.2, which is not supported with admissible affidavit. Secondly, despite opportunity, defendant no.2 failed to cross examine the plaintiff or lead any evidence in order to prove this allegation and lastly, the documents filed and proved by the plaintiff i.e. Ex. PW1/G and Ex. PW1/1 shows that plaintiff and his wife were not maintained by the defendant no.1 and they were subjected to violence by both the defendants. Furthermore, the defendant no.2 has though alleged collusion between defendant no.1 and the plaintiff but she did not file any document to show if she initiated any proceeding against defendant no.1 or the plaintiff and his wife. No complaint can be seen to be made by her against them before any authority or forum, however, in contrast to this, the plaintiff did lodge a complaint against the defendants i.e. Ex. PW1/G to show that he and his wife were subjected to violence. Adding on the the self destructive reply of the defendant no.2, she has admitted that few days in a week, defendant no.1 resides with his parents i.e. plaintiff and his wife. The said submission of defendant no.2 would imply that in the remaining days, CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 12 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:55:34 +0530 defendant no.1 stays with her. The relevance of this statement is that the defendant no2 is still staying with defendant no.1 despite the availability of separate floors and room with defendant no.1 in the same property and, she has never taken any action against defendant no.1 to claim maintenance. She has never lodged any complaint against defendant no.1 or the plaintiff to show that she is the actual victim of violence or there is collusion between her husband/ defendant no.1 and the in laws/ plaintiff. The law laid down in Vinay Verma Vs. Kanika Pasricha, which was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satish Chandra Ahuja Vs. Neha Ahuja warrants its application in the manner as laid down in the judgment. To further elaborate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414 held as follows:
"30. What the learned Trial Court has done is totally at variance with this direction. But before proceeding further we may consider two other aspects. Finding the facts of both the cases similar and in view of the fact that this court had in Vinay Verma's case directed the father-in-law and husband of the petitioner to provide an alternate accommodation and had fixed a rent payable month by month into her bank account, the learned Trial Court also has issued an order of eviction against the petitioner while granting rent to be paid by her husband and father-in-law. However, it is considered apposite to reproduce the guidelines issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vinay Verma's case....83. Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s), we need to observe that the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties.
The directions issued by High court in paragraph 56 adequately balances the rights of both the parties."
e) The above judgment shows that the right of a married woman to her shared household/ alternate accommodation and CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 13 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:55:40 +0530 maintenance is to be considered by applying the principle laid down in Vinay Verma's case. When the said principle is applied to the facts of this case, it can be seen that the defendant no.2 has not been able to prove that the suit property is her shared household; that she is subjected to any domestic violence or there is collusion between her husband and the plaintiff. All that has been proved is that the plaintiff required the suit property for his and his wife's needs and he was subjected to neglect and violence by the defendants and the status of the defendants is no more than licensees. In such circumstance, the judgment of Satish Chander Ahuja is not applicable and the principle number 5 of Vinay Verma's judgment is applicable. To elucidate, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vinay Varma vs Kanika Pasricha and Anr, (2019) 265 DLT 211 had set out the broad guidelines to strike a balance between the rights of parents- in-law and the daughter-in- law as under:
"1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son's/ daughter's family.
2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.
3. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.
4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.
5. In case the son or his family is ill-treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 14 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:55:47 +0530 property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.
6. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children, then if the son‟s family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their daughter-in-law, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter-in-law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband."
f) A bare perusal of the above mentioned judgment would show that when the son or his family is ill treating the parents then the parents have an unconditional right to evict them from their property. In the facts of the present case as well, the plaintiff has successfully proved these requirements and therefore, he is squarely covered under this principle. A daughter in law cannot, as a matter of right, claim any interest or right in the property owned by the father-in-law or the mother-in-law, however, she has every right to claim the right of residence from her husband but rather than claiming the right from her husband, if she along with her husband subject the in laws to violence and harassment, she cannot expect to get the benefit given under the judgment of Satish Chander Ahuja. As the plaintiff has proved his case and his testimony has gone unrebutted, the allegation of collusion made by defendant no.2 fails and given the acrimonious relation of the plaintiff with both the defendants, he is entitled to seek unconditional eviction of the licensees/ both the defendants forthwith. Accordingly, issue no.2 and 3 is decided in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
C. Issue no.4: Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of cause of action.
CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 15 of 16 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.10.16 16:55:58 +0530
a) The onus of this issue was also on the defendants and as explained in the reasoning given in issue no.1 and also in light of issue no.2 and 3 being decided in favour of the plaintiff, it can be said that there is a valid cause of action in the favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, issue no.4 is also decided against the defendants.
RELIEF:
13. This Court hereby allows the suit of the plaintiff and decrees against the defendants, thereby directing the defendants to forthwith handover vacant and peaceful possession of suit property i.e. the first floor of property bearing number 1240, Block No. D, Gali No. 37, DDA Flats, Madangir, New Delhi-110062 to the plaintiff. The defendants are also injuncted from creating any third party interest in the suit property. Parties to bear their own costs.
14. Decree sheet be drawn.
15. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
Announced in the open Court 2025.10.16
16:56:07
+0530
on 16.10.2025
(SHILPI SINGH)
ACJ-CCJ-ARC/South,
Saket Court/Delhi
CS SCJ No. 1091 of 2022 VIJAY KUMAR VS. JITENDER @ JEETU AND ANR. Pages 16 of 16