RAJ RANI Vs. SARDAR MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 1.2.2010, which has reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 13.7.2009. Vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2010, the suit of the plaintiff Raj Rani seeking possession and damages qua the suit property i.e. property bearing no.5419, Ladoo Ghati, Paharganj, New Delhi (as depicted in red and blue colour and referred to as the suit property) had been decreed. THE impugned judgment had reversed this finding; suit had been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF claimed himself to be the owner of the aforenoted suit property. He had let out the property comprising of one room and a covered verandah (red portion) to late Ujagar Singh at a monthly rate of `6.25. The deceased Ujagar Singh had thereafter covered the open space with a tin shed and started his work as a carpenter. He was residing there with his wife Mukhtiar Kaur and daughter Kanwaljeet Kaur. Kanwaljeet Kaur was married to defendant no.1. Defendant No. 1 joined the business of carpenter and started residing with his in laws. PLAINTIFF terminated the tenancy of Ujagar Singh vide notice dated 12.7.1980 to which the reply dated 1.8.1980 was filed. On the termination of his tenancy Ujagar Singh had become a statutory tenant. He expired on 8.1.1982; after his death his widow became tenant for her lifetime as she was financially dependent upon her husband and was living with him. The present defendants although living with Mukhtiar Kaur had not acquired any right, title or interest in the suit property. PLAINTIFF had filed an earlier eviction petition against Mohinder Singh and the two daughters of Ujagar Singh under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRCA. Under wrong advise he had impleaded the daughters of Mohinder Singh also as tenants; this was under wrong legal advise. On an application under order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code, the eviction petition had been permitted to be withdrawn on the submission that present suit for possession had been filed against the said defendants; the said eviction petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 3.1.2005. Possession of the defendants is illegal. They have no right or title to remain in the suit property. Decree of possession has accordingly been prayed for.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Suit of the plaintiff stood decreed.