DEVENDER LAL MEHTA Vs. DHARMENDER MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When materialistic outlook predominates one's mind outweighing all other considerations, no bond of relationship is strong enough to withstand its onslaught. This explains the controversy between a husband and his wife in the present context, where the husband, Shri Devender Lal Mehta(plaintiff), in assertion of his ownership rights in relation to the premises No.D-135, Anand Vihar , New Delhi, has to contend with his wife, Smt.Saroj Mehta(defendant No.2) and his son, Dharmender Mehta(defendant No.1 ) to secure an unhindered ingress and egress to/from the suit property and peaceful enjoyment thereof. This apart, he also seeks a permanent restraint order against his son Shri Dharamender Mehta(defendnat No.1) from entering, living in or keeping any of his goods/belongings in the aforesaid premises.

(2.) Needless to mention that both the defendants are presently living in the suit premises. The plaintiff also claims to be occupying the same for his residence. He is allegedly engaged in the business of sale/publication of medical books/Jouranls, etc. with his office at Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. All his goods/belongings, including books etc. are stated to be lying in a portion of the suit property. It is alleged that defendant No.2 is a quarrelsome lady and defendant No.1, a drug-addict and alcoholic. Both the defendants, according to the plaintiff, keep on misbehaving with him and his other son Bhupinder Mehta. The defendant No.1 is not only being imputed with being abusive to the plaintiff, he is also alleged to have had assaulted him once with a stick resulting in a fracture in his hand. Both the defendants have, according to the plaintiff, been acting in a concerted manner to make his stay in the suit premises miserable to drive him out of the same.

(3.) The defendant No.2 earlier filed a suit bearing No.127/99 against the plaintiff asserting to be owner of the suit premises by virtue of having allegedly provided funds for purchase thereof and sought an injunction against him from dispossessing her therefrom, and from selling, alienating or transferring the suit property. On an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, defendant No.2 was, however, protected against dispossession only holding that being wife, she had a right to live in her matrimonial home.