MOHINDER SINGH VERMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner aged about 85 years who retired from Government service as far back as in the year 1977 is unfortunately pitted against his own son and daughter- in-law who are respondents No.2 and 3. The bone of contention is the ground floor of property No.A-2/163, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi of which the petitioner is the owner. It is a 21/2 storeyed property built by the petitioner after purchasing a plot from Delhi Development Authority vide a Lease Deed of the year 1964. In June, 1996, the petitioner executed a Gift Deed in favour of his daughter-in-law, respondent No.3, in respect of the ground floor portion of this property. However, in terms of Clause 4 A of this Gift Deed, the petitioner reserved his right to reside in the front drawing room along with his wife. The petitioner's grievance is that he has been dispossessed from the said house and is being restrained from entering the house by respondents No.2 and 3 and the local police is not helping him. He also pleads that the respondent No.2 in spite of being the owner of a three bedroom flat in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, which has been let out on rent, is harassing him by throwing him out of his house. The petitioner prays for restoration of the possession of the room of the aforesaid house and also directions to respondent No.1 to register a criminal case against respondents No.2 and 3. He has attached with the petition a copy of his complaint to S.H.O. Police Station Sarojini Nagar, which is dated 27th September, 2003 in which action was prayed against respondents No.2 and 3 complaining that he was restrained by respondents No.2 and 3 from entering the aforesaid room.

(2.) The respondent No.1/State has filed a status report to say that the petitioner has been residing in the adjoining house No.A-2/162 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi which is owned by his another son. It is, however, added that the said son, Sehdev Singh Tomar has been residing on the First Floor of house No.A-2/163, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. It is stated that the dispute is basically of civil nature.

(3.) The respondents No.2 and 3 have filed a reply in which the averments made in the petition have been controverted. However, the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question or that he executed a Gift Deed in their favour on 10th June, 1997 in respect of the Ground Floor is not disputed. It is stated that the condition in regard to the right of the petitioner to occupy the front drawing room was introduced subsequently but it was never acted upon as the petitioner continued to stay in the adjoining property bearing No.A-2/162, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. It is denied that these respondents have restrained the petitioner from entering the ground floor portion of the property in question or told him that he could not live in the said room. It is submitted that the entire story is concocted and has been master-minded by his another son Sahdev, who is an Inspector in Delhi Police. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the records of the case.