RAVI SOOD AND ANR. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Ravi Sood and Ms. Raj Sood are brother and sister -in -law of respondent No. 4 - Ms. Vimla Sood. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are 85 and 81 years old respectively. Respondent No. 4 states that she is 90 years old and she is present in the Court. The dispute between them relates to first floor of property No. H -3, Green Park (Main), New Delhi (the property, for short). The admitted position is that the petitioners were in occupation of the first floor of the said property since May 2005. This possession is not disputed by the respondent No. 4, who is the owner of the first floor of the property. Respondent No. 4 herself along with her maid respondent No. 5 resides on the ground floor of the said property. The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 4 is under influence of the respondent No. 5 and has been acting as per her wishes and on her behest.

(2.) ON or about 17th March, 2010, Ms. Sonia Sood, daughter of the petitioners filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery against respondent No. 4 in respect of the ground floor of the property. However, in paragraph 8 of this suit she has made specific averment that since 2005 Ms. Sonia Sood's aged natural parents (i.e. the petitioners) have been residing on the first floor of the property. Written statement to the suit was filed by the respondent No. 4 on 28th May, 2010. In her written statement, respondent No. 4 has stated that she had sent a legal notice dated 9th March, 2010 to the two petitioners for vacating the first floor and handing over possession of the same to the respondent No. 4. This notice is disputed by the two petitioners. In paragraph 5 of this notice it is stated that the respondent No. 4 on account of harassment was no longer interesting in letting the two petitioners reside in the premises any further and the permission granted to them to reside in the property stands revoked with immediate effect. Respondent No. 4 also claimed right to peaceful possession and damages. The petitioners thereafter filed a caveat in this Court on 13th July, 2010 in respect of a fresh suit for possession, recovery of damages, mesne profits, etc. of first floor of the property.

(3.) THE petitioners have alleged that on 28th July, 2010 they came to know that new pad locks have been clamped on the first floor of the property. The petitioners tried to get in touch with the respondent No. 3 on his cell phone form Mumbai, who assured that the first floor was safe and secure and nobody would be allowed to enter the same. The petitioners made complaints to police officers and other officers while they were in Mumbai. On 29th July, 2010, the petitioners again contacted respondent No. 3. It is, however, alleged that the respondent No. 3 has actively assisted and helped the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in ensuring that the petitioners were not able to enter the first floor. The petitioners claim that on 30th July, 2010 they came from Mumbai to Delhi but respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and some of the associates of the respondent No. 5 did not allow the petitioners to enter the premises and they were intimidated and threatened. Respondent No. 3, it is alleged reached the spot but instead of helping the petitioners started pressuring them to give up their claim for possession and even money was offered to the petitioners if they gave up their claim. It is further alleged that since 31st July, 2010, the petitioners have not been allowed to enter the first floor.