MOHD SHARIF Vs. MOHD SHAMIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute amongst close relations over Shop Nos. 1733 and 1735, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi led respondents herein (plaintiffs before the learned Single Judge) to file a suit for recovery of possession and injunction against the appellants. Appellant No.1 is the brother of the respondents and appellant No.2 is their nephew. During trial, Agreement cum Family Settlement was filed before the trial court in which appellant No.1 with respondent No.2 entered into a compromise regarding shop No.1735. On the basis of that compromise filed before the trial court, respondent No.2 withdrew his suit against the present appellants. THE learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgement and decree against the appellants regarding property bearing No.1733 Kucha Dakhni Rai, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi.

(2.) CLAIM of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that the property in question was taken on rent by respondent No.1 from the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, who were the owner-landlord in respect thereof. Respondent No.2 was a lawful tenant in respect of property No. 1735 Kucha Dakhni Rai, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi under the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India. It is alleged that the appellant No.2-nephew of respondent No.1 was associated by him in his printing business being run by him in premises in question as he was a college drop-out and was not interested in further studies. In the last week of August, 2003 the respondents came to know that the appellants in collusion and connivance with each other were trying to sell/dispose of the printing machine and accessories lying in the premises in question. They were also trying to part with the whole or part of the said premises by accepting a huge premium. Respondent No.1 filed complaint dated 02.09.2003 with the police, however, the appellants did not vacate the premises in question.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have scrutinised the evidence on record. Only pleas the learned counsel for the appellants before us are that the respondents had no right, title or interest in the property in question as they failed to produce and prove on record any allotment of the premises in question in their favour by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India. The documents produced on record by the respondents are fake and forged and cannot be taken into consideration. The respondents admitted in the cross-examination that the premises were purchased from one Kishan Lal. No document to that effect has been filed on record. The appellants have possessory right in the property in question and they cannot be evicted by the respondents from the premises in question. The respondents have taken contradictory plea as to if the respondents were dispossessed from the premises in question or that they had permitted appellant No.2 to occupy the premises in question.