RAVINDER TYAGI Vs. ANAND SWAROOP TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2004 which had reversed the findings of the trial Judge dated 25.03.1992. In the judgment and decree dated 25.03.1992, the suit filed by the plaintiff Anand Swaroop Tyagi seeking mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendants (who are brothers of the plaintiff) be directed to remove their belongings and leave the premises in dispute (bearing No. S-433, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi) had been dismissed. Vide the impugned judgment, the suit of the plaintiff stood decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction. He had claimed himself to be the sole and exclusive owner of the aforenoted suit property. He had a registered sale deed dated 25.08.1964 in his favour. He had constructed the said residential premises from his own earning. Defendants No. 1 to 3 who are the real brothers of the plaintiff had been given permission to occupy one room on the first floor of the premises as licencee. THE plaintiff had control over the remaining portion of the premises. Even after marriage, defendants No. 2 and 3 i.e Ravinder Tyagi and Vijender Tyagi were continuing to occupy the suit property. All the three defendant brothers had a common mess. THE defendants being licencees were directed to vacate the suit property in terms of the legal notice dated 04.07.1984 and thereafter a subsequent notice dated 03.08.84. THEy, however, failed to adhere to the said request. Suit was accordingly filed.

(3.) ON the basis of oral and documentary evidence led before the court, all the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that the suit was maintainable in the present form. It was admitted that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit property. However, the relief was not granted to the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants being the brothers of the plaintiff were living in the suit property since 1966; over the years they had got married and had their own families; it would be unfair to evict them at this stage and disturb their married life. It was largely on this premise that the relief was not granted to the plaintiff. The trial court had also recorded that there is a huge delay on the part of the plaintiff in seeking this relief of mandatory injunction. Suit was accordingly dismissed.