SUDHA GUPTA Vs. AMIT BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code, the applicant seeks to be impleaded as a party CS(OS) 1389/2004 Page 1 of 9 to protect his possession as a lawful tenant in half portion of the third floor (towards Jagdish Store side) of the suit property bearing Municipal Number 16/2402 and 2422, Khasra No. 352 in Block-M, Gali No.11, situated at Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

(2.) The applicant contends that he is in lawful occupation of the aforesaid portion of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- for commercial and residential purposes since 1st January, 1996 vide lease deed dated 21st March, 1996. As per the applicant, the letting of the said portion of the premises was done by defendant No.1 to him with effect from 1st January, 1996. Further, according to the applicant also, after the sale of the said property by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 27th day of March, 1996, he (the applicant) as the tenant attorned to defendant No.2 and started paying rent to the defendant No.2. Therefore, he is well within his rights to protect his lawful possession in respect of the portion of the suit property in his exclusive possession under his lock and key.

(3.) The application is contested by the plaintiff who has filed a reply contending that the application is totally misconceived, baseless, false, CS(OS) 1389/2004 Page 2 of 9 frivolous and mala fide and the same has been deliberately filed with the ulterior motive to delay the disposal of the suit, which is at the stage of trial and in which the evidence of PW1 has already been recorded. Counsel for the plaintiff also contends that along with the above suit for specific performance, declaration and injunction filed by him on 6th May, 1996, he had filed two applications, one under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code being IA No.4215 of 1996 and the other under Order 26 Rule 9 being IA No.4216 of 1996 and that on the aforesaid applications, a Local Commissioner was appointed by order of the Court dated 01.11.1996. As per the report of the Local Commissioner, the third floor of the building was incomplete. The Commissioner, in so far as third floor is concerned, has stated as follows:-