M. PADMA NARAYAN SINGH Vs. RENU SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER arguing for five minutes appellant submits that matter be transferred to some other Bench. I do not find any reason to rescue myself from the case. When appellant was requested to submit arguments she declined to assist the court, inasmuch as left the court in a huff. Accordingly, I have heard learned senior counsel for the respondents, perused the material placed on record and proceed to dispose of the appeal by this order, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix, as emerges from the records, is that respondents filed a suit for possession of a room adjoining to the kitchen in the property, bearing SFS Flat No. 1260 (1st Floor) Category III, Pocket -I, Sector D, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi shown in the red colour in the site plan; as well as for recovery of mesne profits amounting to Rs. 3.60 lacs together with interest and future mesne profits @ Rs.15,000/ - per month. It was further prayed that appellant be restrained from creating third party interest in the suit property and from creating any interference in the possession as well as ingress and egress of respondents in the remaining portion of flat more particularly shown in green colour in the site plan. Respondents alleged that their father, namely, Shri Sharma Nand Sharma acquired lease hold rights in DDA SFS Flats No. 1260, (1st Floor) Category III, Pocket -I, Sector D, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), vide allotment letter dated 11th November, 1987. Subsequently, DDA executed a registered conveyance deed dated 18th August, 1998 in favour of Shri Sharma Nand Sharma. Later on, Shri Sharma Nand Sharma gifted the said flat to respondent no.1 vide registered gift deed dated 5th February, 2010. Respondent no.1 gifted half portion of the said flat to her sister, that is, respondent no.2 vide registered gift deed dated 2nd June, 2011. Thus, respondents were joint owners of the said flat. Sometimes in the year 2003 - 04 Shri Sharma Nand Sharma had permitted the appellant to stay in the suit property as appellant was known to him and was raising construction of her house in Gurgaon (Haryana). However, appellant did not vacate the suit property even after completion of construction of her house. In the year 2007 Shri Sharma Nand Sharma withdrew permission granted to appellant to occupy the suit property but appellant continued to occupy the same. On 30th June, 2010 a team of BSES officials inspected the suit premises and found that appellant was indulging in direct theft of electricity. Appellant also got a frivolous FIR registered against the son of Shri Sharma Nand Sharma as well as caretaker of the suit property. Appellant threatened that in case anybody comes near the flat he will be implicated in criminal cases. Appellant had no right to occupy the suit property and to interfere in the peaceful possession as well as in the ingress and egress of the respondents to portion of the flat shown in green colour. Vide legal notice dated 31st October, 2011 respondents called upon the appellant to vacate the suit property but to no effect, hence, the suit.

(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments and perusing the record trial court passed ex -parte decree on 15th February, 2012. It was held that respondents had succeeded in proving their case. Trial court was satisfied that appellant was permitted to occupy the suit premises by the father of respondents. Respondents had also placed and proved on record copy of writ petition no. 666/2010 filed by the appellant as Ex. PW 1/6. In the para 1 of the petition appellant had stated that she was occupying one room in the guest house (suit property). In para 2 it was further stated that the accommodation was provided to her by Shri Ashok Sharma, Director of Aglomed Pharmaceutical Company. In para 8 appellant stated that she was only a guest in one room of the said guest house. Trial court has concluded that the averments made in the writ petition also indicated that appellant was merely a guest in one room of the suit property and was not paying anything towards the user charges. Trial court has further concluded that appellant was permitted to live in the suit property and which permission was withdrawn by serving a legal notice on her. Consequently, decree of possession was passed. Decree of mesne profits was also passed. Appellant was also restrained from creating third party interest and/handing over possession of the suit property to any third party. She was further restrained from interfering in the possession as well as in the ingress and egress of the respondents in DDA, SFS Flat No. 1260 (1st Floor) Category -III, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi as shown in green colour in the site plan -Ex. PW1/2.