SHAGUN BAGAI Vs. VEENA LUTHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal brought under Sec. 96 read with Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellants have assailed judgment and decree dtd. 7/1/2025, whereby the suit filed by the present respondents for recovery of possession and mesne profits was partly decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to the extent of recovery of possession. On 12/2/2025, in the pre-lunch session, I heard learned counsel for appellants but could not find any merit to even issue notice of the appeal, but due to pending heavy board, after hearing the arguments, matter was passed over till end of the day for orders. However, till late evening on 12/2/2025, order could not be passed, so matter was adjourned for orders to this day.

(2.) At the outset, it would be apposite to extract the order passed in pre-lunch session on 12/2/2025, wherein arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants were recorded. The same is as follows:

(3.) The suit, from which the impugned judgment and decree arose was originally filed by the present respondents against Shri Anand Prakash Bagai, the now deceased father of the appellants. Briefly stated, the factual matrix set up by the present respondents in their suit for recovery of possession of the subject property (ground floor shop admeasuring 18.75 sq meter constructed on 1/4th portion towards north-west side of plot admeasuring 75 sq meter bearing No. 60A, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi) was as follows. Shri Ved Prakash Bagai, the now deceased predecessor of respondents, was allotted a plot of land bearing No. 60A in Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi through registered lease deed dtd. 2/3/1962 and during his lifetime, he constructed shops on the said plot of land. During his lifetime, Shri Ved Prakash Bagai executed two registered Wills dtd. 5/12/1977 by which he bequeathed 1/4th portion on south-east side of the said land alongwith shop built thereon in favour of his elder brother Shri Om Prakash Bagai and by separate Will dtd. 5/12/1977 he bequeathed another 1/4th portion on south-west side of the said land alongwith shop built thereon in favour of his other brother Shri Anand Prakash Bagai and put them in respective possession of the said properties. In the shop bequeathed to him, Shri Anand Prakash Bagai started running his electronic items repair business under the name and style M/s Bagai Razio. Since Shri Anand Prakash Bagai required some more space to stock the new and repairable electronic items, he requested Shri Ved Prakash Bagai, so the latter allowed him to use the north-west portion (the subject property) for storage out of love and affection without any consideration. Upon death of Shri Ved Prakash Bagai, the present respondents inherited the north-east and the north-west portions of the above said property No. 60A, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, but Shri Anand Prakash Bagai continued to be in possession of the subject property as a licensee without any consideration. When the present respondents fell in need of the subject property for their own use and occupation, they requested Shri Anand Prakash Bagai to vacate, but he did not oblige. So, the present respondents jointly issued quit notice dtd. 25/1/2017 thereby terminating the license granted to Shri Anand Prakash Bagai in respect of the subject property and called him upon to restore possession thereof to them within 15 days, failing which he would be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.1,00,000.00 per month. Since Shri Anand Prakash Bagai failed to vacate the subject property, the present respondents filed against him civil suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. Shri Anand Prakash Bagai, who was the suit defendant passed away, leaving behind the present appellants as his legal representatives, who have filed the present appeal.