SWARN KANTA PUNJ Vs. SURABHI GEHLOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants have filed this application for rejection of plaint in this suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff for restraining the defendants from creating any obstructions in her ingress and egress to the portion(Annexe) of property no. 12, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi which she claims to be occupying as a tenant and which portion includes some open space outside her residential Unit which she claims to have been using for parking her car.

(2.) The defendants, out of whom defendant no.2 is stated to be the daughter-in-law of a big builder/developer, are alleged to have purchased the above property in the end of 2012 from its erstwhile owners and as per the plaintiff's case they intend to demolish the entire property to build a commercial complex or a palatial residential house for themselves which they cannot do till the time the plaintiff is in occupation of a part of the property. The plaintiff, who is an old lady of about seventy six years, has alleged in the plaint that in order to evict her illegally from the tenanted premises which had been in occupation of the plaintiff's predecessors for more than fifty years and for many years with her also, the defendants have put up a gate at the main entrance to her tenanted portion so that she is not in a position to take her car inside upto the open space outside the tenanted premises where it used to be parked before the purchase of the property by the defendants. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction and sought the following relief in the plaint:-

(3.) The defendants in their written statement have denied that the plaintiff is a tenant as is being claimed by her or that she had any right to park her car inside the compound of the main bungalow and further that even if the plaintiff and her predecessors have been parking car inside the compound without any objection from the erstwhile owners that would not create any legal right in her favour and at the most that user can be said to be a permissive one and that permission can always be revoked and so this suit for injunction is not maintainable. Rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. was also sought for in the written statement.