CHANDER PRABHA Vs. GENERAL TALKIES LTD. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is a clear reflection that human greed has no limits. The present appeal is also one of the litigations in the chain of litigation initiated by the Appellant which are nothing less than a sheer abuse of the process of law. I would go to the extent of putting that this litigation borders on contempt because of the severe misuse of the process of courts. Why are these strong observations being made by me would be clear from narration of the facts which are given hereinafter.

(2.) IN sum and substance the case as laid forth by the Appellant in the suit, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree as being barred by Order 2 Rule 2 and Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was that the Appellant was a tenant in a portion of the right hand corner portion of Jubilee Cinema situated at Dr. H.C. Sen Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The Appellant/Plaintiff claimed tenancy in the premises w.e.f. 1.4.1989 i.e. immediately after the death of her husband on 31.3.1989. The husband of the Appellant was a manager of the cinema and the cinema owners therefore for the due performance of his duties had given a place of residence in the cinema complex to the late husband of the Appellant Sh. Virender Singh Chauhan. The Appellant was living in this premises along with her late husband Sh. Virender Singh Chauhan and also her two sons namely Sh. Narender Singh Chauhan and Mr. R.S. Chauhan. After the death of Sh. Virender Singh Chauhan, the son Sh. Narender Singh Chauhan was appointed as a manager of the cinema in place of his father and the late husband of the Appellant and thus was allowed to stay in the subject premises as his father had also stayed. The contention of the Appellant before the trial court was that receipts were issued for tenancy at the rate of Rs. 500 per month only from 1.4.1991 to 28.2.1992 and no receipts were issued before this period though (tenancy allegedly commenced on 1.4.1989) or after this period. It is relevant to note that the receipts which have been issued of tenancy in favour of the Appellant are said to have been issued by none other than the son of the Appellant Sh. Narender Singh Chauhan, meaning thereby, the rent receipt issued in favour of the Appellant is of her own son and who has not been made a party to the present suit.

(3.) IN the earlier suit for injunction the application for interim injunction filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Civil Judge. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the court of the Sr. Civil Judge, Delhi and against which order, the Appellant/Plaintiff filed a civil revision in this Court and which civil revision was also dismissed by this Court by its order dated 20.11.2001. The observations made by this Court for dismissing the claim for injunction of the Appellant/Plaintiff are relevant and are therefore reproduced as under: