SMT. VEENA KUMAR Vs. SHRI KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF has filed this suit for possession, damages/mesne profit and permanent injunction against the defendant. Defendant is brother -in -law (husband's brother) of the plaintiff.

(2.) IT is alleged in the plaint that the husband of plaintiff is owner of property bearing no. 48 in Block -D, measuring 80.78 sq. meters situated at Prashant Vihar, Delhi. She had purchased this suit property from Ramesh Kumar vide registered Sale Deed dated 8 August, 2007. Originally, the suit property was allotted to Late Shri Bal Kishan by the Delhi Development Authority vide perpetual Lease Deed dated 19 December, 1980 duly registered in the office of Sub -Registrar I, Delhi. Thereafter, the suit property devolved upon Shri Ramesh Kumar pursuant to a Will left behind by Late Shri Bal Kishan. Wife of Late Shri Bal Kishan, namely Smt. Shanti Devi, was given right to reside in the property during her life time. Shanti Devi expired on 28 June, 2002. Defendant was permitted by Late Shri Bal Kishan to live on the first floor more particularly shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to 'suit property') as a licensee. After the plaintiff acquired ownership rights in the property she made several requests to the defendant to vacate the suit property but to no effect. Finally, plaintiff revoked the license deed vide legal notice dated 28 August, 2009 served through her lawyer Shri D.S. Dalal, Advocate. Defendant claimed himself to be the owner of the suit property vide his reply dated 25 September, 2009 sent through his lawyer Shri S.C. Sharma, Advocate. Thereafter, defendant started negotiating with prospective buyers through property dealers in order to sell the suit property. It is alleged that after the license was terminated defendant has no right to continue to hold possession of the suit property. Besides possession, plaintiff has also claimed damages/mesne profit @ Rs. 20,000/ - per month with effect from 1st October, 2009 till defendant vacates the suit property. It has been further prayed that by way of decree of permanent injunction, defendant be restrained from selling, alienating or creating third party interest in respect of the suit property.

(3.) PLAINTIFF has led ex -parte evidence. Plaintiff (PW1) in her affidavit has supported the averments made in the plaint. She has reiterated that she has purchased the suit property from Shri Ramesh Kumar vide Sale Deed dated 8 August, 2007. Certified copy of the sale deed has been proved by her as Ex. PW1/1. Site plan of the suit property has also been proved by her as Ex. PW1/2. Death certificate of Late Shri Bal Kishan has been proved as Ex. PW1/4. She has categorically deposed that Late Shri Bal Kishan had permitted the defendant to reside in the suit property comprising 3 rooms, 1 bath room, 1 toilet and 1 kitchen as a licensee. She has deposed that the suit property has been shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/2. She requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises but to no effect. Consequently, she revoked the license by serving a legal notice dated 28 August, 2009 through her counsel. Copy of the notice has been proved as Ex. PW1/6. Defendant sent a reply to the said notice through his counsel, which she has been proved as Ex. PW1/7. She has also deposed that prevalent rent in the area with regard to similar property was about Rs. 25,000/ -. She has deposed that rent has further increased in the area and presently the property, under the occupation of the defendant, can easily fetch the rent of Rs. 35,000/ - per month. Copy of rent agreements of certain flats in the same locality, that is, Sector 14 Rohini have been placed on record and have been exhibited as Ex. PW1/8 to PW1/11.