DURGA PRASHAD Vs. PREMWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.7218/2010 Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. This order shall dispose of an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 15.12.2009 whereby while allowing his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the Additional District Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC. The appellant who filed a suit in the Court of Additional District Judge as plaintiff claims that he was a tenant in shop bearing No.246, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, Delhi-6 (hereinafter called as the suit shop) measuring 5x6ft. under one Shri Phool Chand who has since expired. Respondent No.1 is the wife of late Shri Phool Chand and the respondents No. 2 to 6 are his sons. The appellant has sought possession of the suit property from the respondents who found the appellant sitting in the suit shop on 25.5.09 when he visited the same. It was urged by the appellant that the respondent had taken unauthorized possession of the suit shop by breaking open the locks. He complained to the police to whom the appellant showed the rent receipt dated 22.03.1994 qua which it was stated by the respondent that it was forged and fabricated and accordingly, no action was taken by the police. Thereafter, he filed a complaint and then filed the present suit along with applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and Order 40 Rule 1 of the CPC.

(2.) DURING the course of hearing, I enquired from the appellant as to whether he was having rent receipts after 1994 till 2009 to which he answered in the negative. It was stated by him that the respondents were not accepting rent. No explanation, however, was given as to why the appellant has not taken recourse to Section 27 of the DRC Act for deposit of rent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit property was, in fact, vacated by the appellant suo motto in the year 1994 after accepting huge amount from the respondent since then it is the respondent who is in possession of the suit property. It has been denied that the respondents took over the forcible possession of the property or that the appellant has any prima facie case or balance of convenience for the purpose of seeking relief in the form of appointment of a receiver.

(3.) THE Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.