ASHOK KUMAR GARG Vs. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 21st November, 2009 decreeing the suit of the respondent for possession and damages.

(2.) The respondents case as set out in the plaint was that he was a member/shareholder of Amarpali Apartments Group Housing Society and the allottee of Flat no.152 by the aforesaid Cooperative Society, which was built on Plot no.56, Patparganj Residential Group Housing Society Complex allotted to the said Society. The appellant was aware that the respondent was the owner of the aforesaid flat and requested the respondent in the first week of April1995 that he may be allowed to temporarily occupy the aforesaid flat for 5-6 months. The appellant assured the respondent that he would vacate the flat within six months and would soon arrange an alternative accommodation for his residence. The respondent allowed the appellant to occupy the flat temporarily on a purely license basis for six months, and the appellant was asked to pay the water and electricity charges to the Society. After six months, the respondent asked the appellant to vacate the flat. The appellant requested the respondent for some more time for vacating the said flat. The respondent informed the appellant that he was liable to pay Rs.5000/- per month as licence fee/damages to the respondent for the use and occupation of the flat. In January 1996, the respondent again requested the appellant to vacate the flat as the respondent needed his flat. The appellant failed to vacate the same on one pretext or the other. The respondent terminated the licence and since then the appellant is a tresspasser/unauthorized occupant of the flat in question.

(3.) It is further the case of the respondent that the appellant continued to occupy the flat even though the appellant was always promising to vacate the flat and pay the arrears of damages. In the first week of January98, the respondent along with his wife and brother went to his flat and again requested the appellant to vacate the flat. The appellant started misbehaving with them and extending threats. Apprehending danger at the hands of the appellant and his muscle men who had arrived at the scene, the respondent made a complaint to the SHO, P.S. Trilok Puri, Delhi and also to the Society, as by then it had become obvious to the respondent that the appellant was trying to illegally grab his flat and to dispose it of. The respondent had also received letters from the Society that the electricity and maintenance charges from May1995 had accumulated to the tune of Rs.16,959/- upto 30th April, 1998. In the month of July98, the respondent received summons issued in a suit for injunction being Suit No. 392 of 1998 instituted by the appellant, alleging that he had purchased the flat from the respondent against a consideration of Rs.5.45 lakhs through an Agreement to Sell and a General Power of Attorney both dated 9th May, 1995. The appellant therein stated that both the documents had been lost and a police report dated 25th January, 1996 lodged in respect thereof.