ARUNA BAHREE Vs. R K APARTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code (IA No.967/93) for restraining defendant Nos. l and 2 from taking forcible possession of the suit land and interfering with use and e)oyment of the suit land by the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 3 to 5. This Court on 27.1.1993 restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession and the use and enjoyment of the land in suit by the plaintiffs. On the same date the Court appointed Local Com- missioner to go to the site and report as to who is in actual possession of the site. Pursuant to the order of this Court, Local Commissioner had filed the report. For the purposes of adjudicating this application, it is not necessary to go into the report of the Local Commissioner.

(2.) The main controversy between the parties is in relation to an Agreement purported to have been executed between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2, Plaintiff Nos.1 and 7 as also plaintiff No.5 (jointly entered into JointVenture Agreement dated 1.3.1985 with defendants 1 and 2). Two similar Agreements were also executed, one by plaintiff No.2 and the other jointly by plaintiff Nos.3 and 6 and defendant No.5 on 11.3.1985. The relevant clauses of the Agreement dated 1/11.3.1985 which require adjudication by this Court are as follows :-

(3.) Mr. Ravinder Sethi, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, has argued that in view of Clause-20 of the Agreement, the period of opertion of agreement was 5 years from the date of the Agreement in which necessary denotification from the Land Acquisition Act and clearance from Urban Land and Ceiling Act was to be obtained if not obtained and all impediments to construction if not removed the Agreement would become null and void and the defendants were only entitled to get back their security deposits and no other expenses incurred by builders. Mr.Sethi has argued that after the execution of the Agreement on 1/11.3.1985 the Agreements were valid till February, 1990 and thereafter the defendants have no right over the said land under the said Agreements. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that as per Clause-4 of the Agreement it was an obligation under the Agreement to be performed by the defendants to get the clearance of the said plot from acquisition proceedings and proceedings of Urban Land and Ceiling Act as well as from encroachments subsisting on the land in the form of Jhuggi Jhopries so as to enable the defendants to have suitable designs and plans prepared for construction at the site. Learned counsel for plaintiff has also contended that as per Clause-7 of the Agreement the defendants were to submit free of interest with the general power of attorney of the owners as security for due performance of their obligation under this Agreement. A sum of Rs.25,000.00 at the time of execution of Agreement and delivery of the possession of the land, Rs.75,000.00 at the time when the land is free from acquisition, notification and clearance under the Urban Land and Ceiling Act was obtained. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that a sum of Rs.75,000.00 which was to be deposited as security has not been deposited by the defendants. Therefore, the defendants have no right to claim any right in the land in question after a lapse of 5 years stipulated under Clauae-20 of the Agreement.