MADHU MALLICK @ MADHULATA MALLICK Vs. NEHRU BAL SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 19th January, 2016, when this appeal came up for admission, the following order was passed:

(2.) The Trial Court file has been received and perused and counsels heard.

(3.) The respondent filed the suit from which this appeal arises for ejectment of the appellant from Room No.9 within the property of Nehru Bal Samiti, Opposite R -2, South Extension Part -II, near Jain Mandir, New Delhi and for recovery of mesne profits / damages for use and occupation pleading i) that the respondent / plaintiff, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was/is inter alia running an unaided recognised primary school upto Class V in the name and style of Bal Vikas Vidhyalya at Masjid Moth, New Delhi; ii) that the land underneath the said school was granted on perpetual lease to the respondent / plaintiff; iii) that the appellant / defendant in July, 2004 had approached the respondent / plaintiff offering her voluntary services for the school aforesaid and the respondent / plaintiff believing the representation made by the appellant / defendant qua her educational qualifications allowed the appellant / defendant to join the respondent / plaintiff to render her services as voluntary honorary worker; iv) that the respondent / plaintiff also arranges classes in the aforesaid premises on hourly basis for rendering service to National Institute of Open School, New Delhi and to help the appellant / defendant, started paying her a sum of Rs.3,000/ - for the services being rendered by the appellant / defendant; v) that the appellant / defendant on her request was also allowed to use Room No.9 in the property of the respondent / plaintiff at South Extension Part -II on leave and licence basis for her residence; vi) that however upon the failure of the appellant / defendant to submit original certificates of her educational qualification which she had claimed to profess and on account of the conduct of the appellant / defendant, the respondent / plaintiff in November, 2004 decided to dispense with the honorary service of the appellant / defendant and so informed the appellant / defendant about the same and also called upon the appellant / defendant to vacate the aforesaid room in which she had been permitted to reside; vii) that though the appellant / defendant filed CM(M) No.1073/2006 in this Court for release of her salary but the said petition was dismissed; viii) that the appellant / defendant however did not vacate the aforesaid room and in or about the year 2005 instituted a suit against the respondent / plaintiff inter alia for specific performance of the contract of employment and in which suit an interim order restraining the respondent / plaintiff from taking over possession of the aforesaid room save by due process of law was passed; and, ix) that the appellant / defendant has no right to continue in occupation of the room aforesaid.