PRATAP SINGH Vs. RAM CHANDRA PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in the above mentioned suit have filed the present application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing of a decree of possession in their favour and against the defendants in respect of two rooms, as per site plan annexed of the property bearing No.752 -A, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, in view of the admissions made in the pleadings and documents by the defendants.

(2.) BRIEFLY delineated, the case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint is that they are the owners of the property bearing No. 752 -A (South Side) measuring 210 Sq. Yds. situated at Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, having purchased the said property vide Sale Deed dated 7.1.2011 from the absolute owners, namely, Smt. Uma Devi, Sh. Sunil Saini, Sh. Anil Singh Saini, Sh. Vipin Saini, Sh. Prashant Saini, Sh. Sanjeev Singh Saini, Smt. Pushpa Saini, Sh. Mohit Saini, Sh. Keshav Saini, Mrs. Priti Saini, Sh. Shailender Singh Saini, Sh. Ravinder Singh Saini, Sh. Bhalinder Singh Saini, Sh. Kanwar Gopal Singh Saini, Sh. Rajinder Singh Saini, Sh. Yudhvir Singh Saini and Sh. Surjit Singh Saini. The absolute owners had given the suit property on rent to one M/s Vaishali International having its office at Yashwant Place, New Delhi. The said M/s Vaishali International earlier had its office at Defence Colony, New Delhi and, therefore, utilized the suit property for the purpose of residence of the drivers and other employees of the Company. M/s Vaishali International ran into financial difficulties and surrendered the tenancy of the suit property in favour of the erstwhile owners. Though M/s Vaishali International ceased to be the tenant in the said property and even called upon its employees to vacate the said property, some of the employees started working for the erstwhile owners and, therefore, stayed on as domestic help.

(3.) IT is alleged in the plaint that during this period, the defendant No.1 also brought one of his relations into one of the vacated rooms, namely, Mr. Jagannath Mishra, and the latter was also made a party to the settlement; and the plaintiffs were also coerced into paying the money to the said Jagannath Mishra as well. The defendant no.1, however, flatly refused to vacate the premises and he, since the date of the purchase of the suit property, is an unauthorized occupant in the property. The status of the defendant No.1 after termination of his licence is, therefore, that of an illegal occupant and a trespasser. It is alleged that the defendants are causing a lot of harassment to them through their unauthorized occupation of the suit property and the continuous complaints made by them against the plaintiffs before the authorities. Hence, the present suit for possession, mandatory injunction and mesne profits.