KRANTI ARORA Vs. BIRLA VXL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit filed by the plaintiff for possession and recovery of damages. The property in issue of which possession is sought is a flat bearing No. 12, situate at 3-4, South End Lane, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ,,flat). The plaintiff has claimed ownership of the flat. It is the plaintiffs case that the defendant being a trespasser, has no legal right to claim the occupation of the flat and hence, possession ought to be given to him. It would be pertinent to note here that the issues famed with regard to ownership of the flat have not been pressed by the plaintiff in view of the stand taken by the defendant that the plaintiff is the land lord. I will advert to the orders passed in this regard in the later part of my judgment.

(2.) THE plaintiff in support of his case and reliefs claimed (which are noticed hereinabove), has made the following averments. However, before I set out to do that, I must indicate that there is complete lack of chronological structure in the pleadings of both parties. I have attempted to put these in a chronological manner in the later part of my judgment after perusing the pleadings, placing together the evidence and recording the submissions of counsel.

(3.) IN support of its case the plaintiff examined himself and three other witnesses. Mr Kranti Arora, i.e., the plaintiff (PW1); Mr Sunil Mendiratta, Clerk, Punjab National Bank (PW2); Sh. Manmohan Sharma, C.A. with Kailash Nath & Associates (PW3) and Mr Ashok Kr. Gupta (PW4) contractor, who evidently undertook the renovation work in the flat. The defendant, on the other hand, examined only one witness, i.e., Mr R.C. Tiwari (DW1), who purportedly is the constituted attorney of the defendant.