CHANO BEGUM Vs. AHMAD SAEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an old RFA of the year 1999. The same was dismissed for default on 14.10.2009 and thereafter it was restored subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- on 21.9.2010, and by which order the appeal was subsequently listed for hearing today. Today, on the first call, costs were paid however, the counsel for the Appellant requested for a pass over because he was not ready with the matter. On the second call, the counsel states that he will file written arguments and the court should decide accordingly. Accordingly, since, the counsel for the Appellant does not want to orally argue the case, I am proceeding to decide this case on the basis of the record as the counsel for the Respondent has strongly opposed the stand of the Appellant and has argued the case on behalf of the Respondent.

(2.) The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeks to impugn the judgment and decree dated 21.1.1999 dismissing the suit for specific performance filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff.

(3.) The facts of this case are curious indeed, to say the least. The property in question is one room with chajja, one store, kitchen, bathroom, latrine, courtyard on the ground floor of premises No. 7595/B, Ward No. XIV, Katra Khuda Bux, Qassabpura, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The agreement to sell is stated to be dated 23.7.1992. The husband of the Appellant was the tenant in the premises and against the husband an eviction decree was passed by the court of the Rent Controller, Delhi on 16.3.1990 and thereafter a revision petition was also dismissed because the tenant himself gave an undertaking to the court to vacate the premises by 30.7.1992. However, in violation of the undertaking, the property was not vacated. The tenant had in the meanwhile died and the therefore contempt proceedings were initiated against the legal heirs for failing to vacate the subject premises. In the contempt proceedings the sons of the tenant were held guilty of contempt of court and were evicted from the property. Therefore, only through legal proceedings, the Respondent/Defendant ultimately got possession of the suit property.