CO OPERATIVE STORES Vs. B D SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) E.A. No. 34/95 This EA under sections 47 and 151 read with Order 41, Rules 97 and 101 Civil Procedure Code is by three applicants, stating themselves to be the bonafide occupiers of shops No. 213, 211 and 211A at Mohan Singh Market, pupularly known as I.N.A. Market near Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, further stating that on 21.1.1995, the applicants learnt that the officials of the Cooperative Stores Ltd. had come to the shop for executing the decree of ejectment against one Mr. B.D.Sharma, New Prominent Tailors & Drappers, Vijay Sales Corporation, Bharat Bag House, Super Stitch Tailor and Janata Tea House.

(2.) As far as this EA is concerned, it is the say of the applicants that they are in bonafide occupation of the shops in question since 1987; that the shop of the DH is situated at 10 paces away from the premises in question; that the applicants spent money to renovate the shops in question and made the same habitable after considerable expenses and that in 1988, applicant No.l entered into an agreement with Delhi Consumer Cooperative Whole Sale Stores Limited, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The say of the opponents is that the application is a sheer abuse of process of law; that the applicants are guilty of suppression of facts and have played fraud on the court; that the applicants have no locus standi to move the present application as they are sheer tresspassers; that the opponent-DH filed suit No.l411/83 for possession of four shops, viz. Shop No-211,212,213 and 214 and the Central Hall having two enterances; that the said suitwas originally filed in the year 1980 in the court of District Judge and thereafter, the same stood transferred to this court; that the six defendants, who were in possession of the shops at the time of filing of the suit were impleaded as the defendants; that the decree for possession came to be passed against all the defendants/JDs; that in execution of the said ejectment decree, the decree "holder went to take possession on 30.11.94; that the bailiff had firstly taken the possession of the Central Hall and handed over the same to the representative of the D.H. but the applicants, lateron, broke open the lock, which was applied on the Central Hall by the D.H. and tresspassed upon the premises in question; that these applicants filed similar application i.e. EA 336/94 stating that they have come to know about decree on 30.11.94 and prayed for stay of execution of the warrants of possession which this court was not inclined to grant; that thereafter, concealing the fact of EA 336/94 and the order passed therein, the applicants have filed the present EA and obtained exparte order; that the applicants are not in lawful occupation of the premises- nor they do have any independent right and that they have not been inducted by the decree holder atany point of time.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Bindra, counsel for the applicants that suit No. 1411/83 was decided ex parte on 7.7.1993; that the J.Ds. have been sponsored by some body; that the applicants are in independent and bonafide physical possession of the suit shop and that they are not put up by the J.Ds.; that the property in question is a government property and the D.H. did not join these applicants as the party in the suit because the government is going to regularise the possession of the occupants in the shops; that this is the only forum where the applicants can come and that the applicants' possession be enquired into. As against this, it is submitted by Mr. Bagai, counsel for the opponents-DH that the applicants- do not have any independent possession; that in 1972, the JDs were granted licence in respect of four shops and Central Hall; that in the year 1980, ejectment suit was filed against the licencee which suit lateron was transferred to this court; that the said suit came to be decreed on 7.7.93; that prior to this EA, EA 336/94 was filed by all the objectors; that in that EA, it has been stated that the knowledge about the decree was drawn on the applicants on 30.11.94 whereas in para 6 of this EA it isstated that the applicants came to know about the passing of the decree on 20.1.1995 and in EA 336/94 the prayer for stay of the execution of decree was not granted ex parte and notice was issued to the DH, which fact has been suppressed in the present EA; that the applicants had also filed civil suit without making D.H. a party and in that suit also, the injunction restraining the defendants (Director of Estate & Another) from dispossessing the plaintiffs from Shops No-213 and 211 situated at INA market was refused.