SAFIA IQBAL Vs. ISHAAT E ISLAM TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application, plaintiffs seek interim protection of dispossession from the school situated at Jamia Nagar, New Delhi by the defendant till final disposal of the suit. The plaintiff has sought a decree of specific performance of the contract with a direction to defendant to execute lease deed for a period of 99 years in respect of the land on which the school in question is run, with a further direction not to create any hindrance in smooth and peaceful running of the "Scholar School" being run by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have further prayed that they be not dispossessed from the school otherwise than in accordance with due process of law.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff, in short is that the defendant trust had given the land to the plaintiffs on lease on 9/08/1989 with mutual understanding that in case the plaintiffs successfully construct, establish, furnish, maintain and run a school for education of students within a period of five years, the defendant would execute further lease for a period of 99 years. Plaintiffs constructed the entire building on the lease-land and spent approximately Rs.50 lakhs within a period of 10 years and gave the name of the school as " Scholar School". It is alleged that as the price of the land went up during a period of 10 years, the defendant started pressurising the plaintiffs to execute cancellation deed of the lease. It is also alleged that signatures of the plaintiffs were got on a false and unbinding agreement under the threat of gun point. The plaintiffs were never presented before the Notary Public or the appropriate Registering Authority for registration of the cancellation deed as well as the agreement alleged to have been executed on 28/07/1995. The defendant turned dishonest as they were not inclined to execute the lease deed for 99 years and started threatening the plaintiffs in order to forcibly dispossess them from the school premises. The plaintiffs sent a legal notice dated 26/11/1998 to the defendant calling upon them not to interfere with the running of the school by the plaintiffs. It is also alleged that the defendant interfered in recognition of the school and sent a legal notice dated 17.9.1998 to the Director of Education, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Deputy Director of Education, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi opposing the recognition. Oral requests to execute the base deed for a period of 99 years were made. The defendant did not respond. A legal notice was addressed to the defendant calling upon them to execute the lease deed for a period of 99 years. The defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant raised numerous objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit. According to the defendant the plaintiff's have not come with clean hands and have misstated and concealed and suppressed material facts from this Court. The suit is barred by time. The plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The suit is also bad for misjoinder of parties as the parties to the agreement of 28/07/1995, i.e., Mohd. Shafi Moonis and Mohd. Ashfaq Ahmad have not been made parties to the suit. The suit was filed with mala fide intention to grab the property of the defendant. Land in question was given on lease to plaintiff No.2, who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and one Mr. Mohammad Ashfaq Ahmed, vide lease deed dated 9.8.1989 for a period of 5 years on a nominal rent of Rs.100.00 per annum. The lease was to commence from 1.7.1989 and to remain in force upto 30.6.1994. The lease was given for running a school in accordance with the educational policy of the defendant Trust. It was specifically agreed that the plaintiff No.2 would raise temporary structure to run the school in a portion of the land in question. A temporary structure was raised. A request was made to the defendant Trust for extension of said lease for a further period of 5 years vide their letter dated 16.12.1993. The defendant trust declined the request. The plaintiffs surrendered the possession of the land in question to the defendant along with superstructure and the school on 28.7.1995. A letter of handing over and taking over the possession of the land along with superstructure thereon and a Cancellation Deed were executed and signed by the parties on 28.7.1995. The defendant is in actual and physical possession of the land and superstructure and the school since 28.7.1995. However, to safeguard the interest of the students and the teachers, defendant entrusted the property of the school to the plaintiffs and two other persons namely Mr. Mohammad Shafi Moonis & Mr. Mohammad Ashfaq upto 31/03/2000 by way of an agreement dated 28.7.1995. It was agreed that in case the plaintiffs and the above two persons were not in a position to manage the school, they would hand over the management of the school by 31.3.2000 including goodwill, management, furniture, super-structure etc. The plaintiffs and the other two persons took over management of the school in July 1995. The plaintiffs became dishonest and planned to grab the school and the property of the defendant. An application was made to the Delhi Government for recognition of the school. The application was made in the name of another society, namely, Scholar Educational Board. The agreement specifically provides that the parties would apply jointly to the concerned state authorities for recognition of the school upto the secondary level. The application was moved without the knowledge of the defendant trust. When it came to the knowledge of the defendant trust that an application had been moved without their knowledge, they informed the Education Department to withhold the recognition. Legal notice to this effect was sent to the Administrator, Govt. of NCT and to the Director of Education. The defendant trust contends that the plaintiffs committed a fraud. The plaintiffs offered to purchase the land in February 1999. The defendant trust declined to accept the said offer. The defendant trust further denies that there was any request for execution of a lease deed for a period of 99 years. The cancellation deed dated 28.7.1995 has not been challenged. The said document is legal, valid and binding between the parties. The lease deed executed between the parties on 9/08/1989 expired on 30/06/1994. The suit on the basis of . the said agreement is not maintainable.