GANDHARAV SAINI Vs. PUSHPA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Execution First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the appellant impugns the order of the Executing Court dated 14.10.2009 by which the objections filed by respondent No.1 herein, namely Smt. Pushpa Sharma (objector) were allowed and the judgment and decree dated 23.1.2006 was held to be not binding upon her. As a consequence thereof, possession of the suit premises, being Shop No.P-4, Connaught Place, New Delhi (suit premises) was directed to be restored to the objector.

(2.) The appellant's case is that Shri V.B. Sharma, the husband of respondent No.1 was a tenant in the suit premises. Upon his demise, the tenancy was inherited by his legal heirs including his widow Smt. Pushpa Sharma/the objector/respondent No.1 and her son Shri Ajay Sharma, respondent No.2 herein. Respondent No. 1 has another son namely Shri Mukesh Sharma. The appellant's case was that he was put in possession of the suit premises by Shri Ajay Sharma, who had represented himself to be its owner. This possession was on a monthly lease of Rs.26,000/- and an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs was also paid as pagri to Mr. Ajay Sharma by the appellant in the presence of Shri Sanjay Kumar @ Raju, Shri Shailender Gupta and Smt. Shakuntla. Whereas the case of the objector was that Shri Ajay Sharma was never in possession of the suit premises and only she who was in the exclusive possession of the suit premises. Nonetheless, she pleaded that the appellant was inducted into the suit premises as a salesperson on commission basis by her brother Shri O.P. Sharma, to whom the suit premises had been entrusted merely to look after for the duration when she had gone to meet her other son, Shri Mukesh Sharma in Canada.

(3.) The appellant had contended that the documents relied upon by the objector to prove her possession of the suit premises were only photocopies whereas the original documents were with Mr. Ajay Sharma, which were filed in the suit for possession instituted by him against Shri Ajay Sharma under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Relief Act").