GAINDA RAIKWAL Vs. KUNDAN LAL MENGHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the executing court dated 22.7.2014 by which the executing court has issued warrants of possession with respect to the suit property bearing no. 10/18, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi-110060, possession of which has been decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) (i) Respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit no. 402/2013 titled as Kundan Lal Menghani Vs. Gainda Raikwal for possession etc of the suit property bearing no. 10/18, 4th Floor, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. In the plaint, respondent/plaintiff stated that he had purchased the property from one Ms. Jai Lakshmi Kashyap wife of late Sh. Vijay Kumar Kashyap vide title documents dated 6.4.2008. Petitioner/ defendant was known to one Mr. Kriplani (probably the Advocate who is appearing and arguing for petitioner/JD/defendant) and Mr. Kriplani stated that petitioner/JD/defendant was a poor lady and earning livelihood as a maid servant and she can be permitted to reside in a temporary/katcha constructed room in the suit property for a month till she makes an alternative accommodation and that the petitioner/JD/defendant would vacate the suit premises immediately on the asking of the respondent/DH/plaintiff. Respondent/DH/plaintiff allowed the petitioner/JD/defendant to reside in the property but she alongwith Mr. Kriplani unauthorisedly took electricity from the house of Mr. Kriplani and unauthorisedly extracted water from the municipal tap and also filed a false suit for injunction alleging tenancy. In this suit for injunction filed by the petitioner/JD/defendant, she was not successful in obtaining any interim injunction and her injunction application was dismissed. In the subject suit possession, mesne profits etc were prayed stating that petitioner/JD/defendant is only a gratuitous licencee and who should be asked to vacate the property.

(3.) A resume of the above facts make it clear that the petitioner was the defendant in the suit whose decree is being executed. In the writtenstatement no objection was raised that the civil court had no jurisdiction.