TILAK RAJ Vs. HARISH JHAMB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have filed this suit for permanent injunction on the allegations that plaintiffs 1 to 3 were the partners of plaintiff No.4 and were carrying on business as real estate agents from the mezzanine floor of the property being No.R-7/B, Green Park Extension Market, New Delhi. It is alleged that plaintiff No. 1 representing himself to be the owner and in occupation of the property had let the said floor to the plaintiffs and vacant possession thereof was delivered to them. A Memorandum of Understanding is stated to have been executed between the parties whereunder the plaintiffs were entitled to use the premises in question as an office and defendants were to receive 25% of the earnings from the said business. It is alleged that the plaintiffs started running their business after taking possession of the mezzanine floor and a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 was paid by cheque dated 21 st August, 1995 towards the rent which amount is alleged to have been duly received by the defendants by encashment of the cheque. A Maruti car is alleged to have been arranged by the plaintiffs to the defendant for his use and enjoyment on rental basis and it was allegedly agreed that the defendant would adjust a sum ofRs.24,000.00p.a. for use and enjoyment of the car against the rent to be paid by the plaintiffs and this amount of Rs.24,000.00 was allegedly agreed to be the minimum payment of rent for the premises. It is further alleged that some disputes had arisen between one M/s.Gochwal Leasing and Finance Private Limited, who is alleged to have purchased 5/6th share of the .property in question from Sh. Jagdish Jhamb, brother of the defendants and the said leasing company had filed a suit being suit No. 1749/95 for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell; against an interim order passed in the said suit, an appeal being FAO.(OS).89/96 was filed before the Division Bench and during the pendency of the proceedings in appeal, a local commissioner was appointed who has submitted his report allegedly showing the plaintiffs to be in possession of the mezzanine floor of the property in question. The further allegations in the plaint are that the defendants were now trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the said mezzanine floor and the plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to the grant of an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their right to enjoy the mezzanine floor of the property which is alleged to have been let to them by the defendants.

(2.) Along with the suit, an application for ad interim order of injunction was filed and this Court had by order dated 27th March, 1996 granted an ex parte order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the mezzanine floor of the property.

(3.) On being served with the ex parte order of injunction, the defendants besides filing the written statement, have also filed an application for vacating the said order. The grounds on which the ex parte order of injunction was sought to be vacated were that the attempt of the plaintiffs was to grab the entire property under forged and non-est documents; that plaintiffs were never in possession of any part of the suit property or at least at the time of filing of the suit as was allegedly evident from the report of the local commissioner who was appointed by the Division Bench of the Court in the appeal referred to above. It is contended in the written statement by the defendants that the defendants had witnessed a document between the plaintiffs and had signed all the pages of the said document, however, the plaintiffs it appears have replaced pages 1 and 2 of the said document so as to make this Court to believe that it was a partnership deed which was witnessed by defendant No. 1 whereunder the address of the firm had been given as the mezzanine floor of the property. The Memorandum of Understanding is also stated to have been fabricated as the same was alleged to have not been signed by defendant No. 1. It is stated that in fact defendant No.1 was carrying on business under the name and style of Prime Properties at the said place and the plaintiffs had no connection with the said firm. It is stated that it was yet another effort on the part of the aforesaid M/s .Gochwal Leasing and Finance Private Limited, to grab the property after it had failed in its attempt to usurp the first and second floor of the property where the learned single Judge had vacated the ex parte order of injunction obtained by the aforesaid M/s.Gochwal Leasing and Finance Private Limited, in respect of first and second floor of the property holding that the receipts produced by the said plaintiffs did not appear to be genuine documents. It is alleged that it was only after the injunction was vacated by learned single Judge on 28th February, 1996 that the present suit had been filed claiming possession of the mezzanine floor.