JAI BHAGWAN SHARMA Vs. MUNNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the Petitioner for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the Respondent herein for wilfully disobeying the Judgment/Order dated 24.07.2018, passed by this Court in RFA No. 567/2018 and for wilful breach of the undertaking given to this Court on 09.08.2018 in compliance of the Order dated 24.07.2018.

(2.) The case has a chequered history. The Petitioner states that he is the owner of a built up property bearing No. F-163, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92, admeasuring 223 Sq. Yards (hereinafter referred to as "the premises in question"), which he had purchased vide a registered sale deed dated 17.10.1970. It is stated that in 1973, the Petitioner herein permitted the husband of the Respondent herein to occupy an area of 50 Sq. Yards (marked in red colour in the site plan enclosed with the petition) in the premises in question at a license fee of Rs.550/- per month. It is stated that the Petitioner was posted in Nepal as a Government employee. It is stated that when the Petitioner returned to India in 1982, he would be posted in different parts of the country and he used to collect the licence fee from the husband of the Respondent herein at an interval of 2-3 months. It is stated that the Petitioner retired from service in 1996 and shifted to the premises in question. It is stated that the Petitioner herein asked the husband of the Respondent to vacate the portion of the premises in question that was in possession of the husband of the Respondent, i.e. 50 Sq. Yards in 2002. It is stated that when the husband of the Respondent refused to vacate the premises in question, the Petitioner herein filed a Suit, being Suit No.408/2008 (New No.17074/2016), before the learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with the following prayers:

(3.) At this juncture it is pertinent to mention that the Respondent herein had filed a Suit, being Suit No. 385/1996, against the Petitioner herein for a declaration that she was the owner of the premises in question by way of adverse possession. In the said suit, it was stated that the Respondent was in occupation of 100 Sq. Yards of the premises in question and the Respondent had perfected the title of the premises in question by way of adverse possession as she had been staying at the premises for over twenty years. The Respondent herein withdrew the said Suit on 07.02.2002 in view of the statement made by the Petitioner herein that the Respondent would not be disposed from the premises in question without following the due process of law.