MOHAN PANDEY Vs. USHA RANI RAJGARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.

(2.) The respondents in this appeal have successfully invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of Constitution for enforcement of a private right to immoveable property against the appellants who are two brothers and who are resisting the claim. The question is as to whether the writ jurisdiction in the High Court is available for the enforcement of such a right claimed by and against private individual.

(3.) The dispute relates to a house-property in Delhi. A suit for eviction of the appellants from the building is pending in the trial Court. According to the case of the respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the property, she had let out the same to one Shri B. K. Pandey who later illegally handed over the possession thereof to the appellant No. 1. According to the further case of the respondent, the portion of the said house property which is the subject matter of the present case is beyond the purview of the pending suit. The occasion for initiating the present proceeding with respect to this portion arose, it is said, on account of the high-handedness of the appellants who illegally trespassed beyond the area which is the subject matter of the pending suit, and indulged in several illegal activities. In other words the appellants are trespassers and are guilty of mischievous conduct. However, instead of filing a suit in the Civil Court or making an appropriate prayer for amendment of her plaint in the pending suit, she through respondent No. 2 holding power of attorney, approached the High Court directly by a writ petition under Art. 226 for issuance of appropriate direction restraining the appellants from disturbing the lawful possession of the respondents. The Delhi Administration and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, were also impleaded as parties with a prayer that appropriate order should be issued against them also and they should be directed not to register any further false and vexatious complaint against them at the instance of the appellants. It is her case that the appellants have been getting undue police help and are being encouraged to commence frivolous criminal cases against respondent No.1 and her agent.