SHRI KRISHAN MOHAN Vs. MANDODRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2010 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 29.08.2009. Vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.2009, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking possession of the suit property (property depicted in red colour in the site plan Ex. P-2 being 4 servant quarters in property No. 4, University Road, Delhi) had been decreed; damages at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month along with the interest at 18% per annum had also been awarded. Impugned judgment had reversed this finding; suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed.

(2.) KRISHAN Mohan after the death of D.R. Gupta claimed himself to be the karta of the joint Hindu family; property no. 4, University Road, Delhi belonged to the family. This property comprised of various servant quarters; four servant quarters (as depicted in the site plan Ex. P-2) are the subject matter of the present suit. Late D.R. Gupta was the Managing Director of M/s Motor and General Finance Limited (MGF). The defendant Sh. Yad Ram being an employee of the MGF was retained as a driver and in that capacity he was permitted to occupy these four servant quarters along with his family. In 1969, Sh. Yad Ram, suffered a heart attack; he was asked by the plaintiff to produce a fitness certificate recording his fitness to drive the vehicle which he failed to do; he abandoned the services of the plaintiff and absented himself from the duty. Late Sh. D.R. Gupta had allowed Shri. Yad Ram to continue to stay in the suit property till the time he was able to shift to an alternate accommodation. Sh. Yad Ram died on 19.01.1972; he, however, did not vacate the suit property. His widow and sons continued to remain in the property. Despite the demise of Sh. Yad Ram, because of the fact that he was serving late Sh. D.R. Gupta as a driver, his family was allowed to remain in the suit property. On 26.04.1973, legal notice was served upon the defendants calling upon them to vacate the suit property. Electricity and water charges were also claimed. However, to no avail. Reply to the legal notice had been sent on 15.05.1973 where for the first time, defense was taken by the defendants that they were tenants in the suit property. Present suit was filed.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led.