LAWS(DLH)-1987-10-36

BHARGAVA AND COMPANY Vs. SHYAM SETH

Decided On October 21, 1987
BHARGAVA AND COMPANY Appellant
V/S
SHYAM SUNDER SETH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First 'Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt. July 25, 1985 passed by the court of Shri O. P. Dwivedi, Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of possession and also for mesne profits amounting to Rs. 5,400.00 against the appellants/defendants.

(2.) Shri Shyam Surider Seth, plaintiff (who is respondent in this appeal) filed a suit No. 491 of 1984 against the present appellants (defendants in suit) for recovery of possession of the portion of property bearing No. 1/1553- 1554, forming part of property No. 1/1553- 55 and 1551-52 (Part) (New), Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi as shown in red colour in the plan and for recovery of Rs. 5,400.00 on account of use and occupation charges/mesne profits.

(3.) According to the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent is the owner of property bearing No. 1/1553-551/2 and 1551-52 (Part) (New) Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The respondent purchased the property in public auction held on 20-11-1962 as he was the highest bidder. The sale certificate with respect to the said property was issued by the Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi in exercise of its power under S. 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) on Mar. 31, 1981 and the same was duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Delhi According to plaintiff/respondent, the appellants/defendants are unauthorised occupants in portion of the property bearing No. 1/1553-1554 forming part of the aforesaid property. The appellants failed to deliver the vacant possession of the property to respondent. Defendants are also liable to pay mesne profits for use and occupation. The cause of action, according to the plaint, arose in favour of respondent on Mar. 31, 1981 when the certificate of sale was issued in favour of respondent.