ASHA DHINGRA Vs. SUSHMA JATOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the appellant who was the plaintiff before the learned Single Judge is that the respondent/ defendant allegedly misused the interim orders by inducting a tenant (Embassy of Zimbabwe) into the suit premises at a rate, which according to the appellant was much lower than the market rate. The learned Single Judge has held that the tenant being already in occupation of the premises and as such no relief could be granted to the appellant/ plaintiff.

(2.) Further grievance of the appellant is that the respondent/ defendant has been allowed to withdraw 25% of the amount lying in the Court being rental amounts paid by the said Embassy, whereas the said respondent, according to appellant, has been earlier exclusively appropriating the amounts for the previous so many years and therefore, should not have been allowed to take away any further amount until she first renders accounts in the pending suit filed by the appellant/ plaintiff also for rendition of accounts.

(3.) On 21.11.2001, we issued notice to show cause and also granted interim stay in relation to that part of the impugned order, which directed the respondent to withdraw 25% of the rent. Thereafter on 29.4.2002 we directed that the suit record be made available to us on the next date of hearing.