USHA SALES LIMITED Vs. ARUNA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the plaintiffs seek the following reliefs against the defendants in respect of the itemises in dispute comprising the first floor premises of the house known as 99-Anand Lok, New Delhi and the second floor in the annexe premises and the car parking space on the ground floor, therein :-

(2.) Plaintiff No. 1 M/ s. Usha Sales Ltd., New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred to as the Company) is a limited company duly registered under the Indian Companies Act, and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are respectively its marketing manager and a senior officer. The premises in question were taken on lease by the Company from the defendants at a monthly rental of Rs. 3100 out of which the rental of Rs. 2100 was towards the first floor of the main premises and the remaining Rs. 1100 towards the second floor of the annexe premises and the car parking space on the ground floor. The premises m question were allotted by the Company to its previous General Manager L. L. Jain for his residence who subsequently tendered his resignation from the service of the company on 6-2-1982 and whose resignation was accepted and who was ultimately relieved by the Company from its service on 5-5-1982, and who also handed over the possession of the said premises along with furniture etc. to the company on that very day. The dispute between the parties arose in respect of these premises when plaintiff no. 2 S. N. Sarma, the marketing manager of the Company who was transferred from Hyderabad to Delhi, was sought to be put into possession of the premises in question and who had brought with him a truck load of .his luggage to these premises and when his entry in these premises was sought to be resisted by the land-lady Ms. Aruna Gupta and her husband Bharat Kumar Gupta defendant No. 2 on the ground that the leasedeed in respect of the tenancy premises was only for the residence of the Company's previous General Manager L. L. Jain and for no other officer of the Company and that the lease had come to an end after L. L. Jain had left the services of the Company and handed over the possession of the premises in question The allegations of the plaintiffs are that when S. N. Sarma. Saniay Wndhawan co-plaintiff Ms. S. N. Sarma and Company's Chowkidar named Pancham went up and got into the first floor of House No. 99, Anand Lok, New Delhi, the defendants, all of a sudden, locked the door of the staircase on the ground floor which is the only access to the premises in question en the first floor and a further intention of causing further harassment to them, cut-off the electricity, telephone and water connections of the first floor premises as a result of which the above-mentioned four persons were illegally and forcibly detained and confined to the first floor of the premise against their wishes by the defendants for about four hours and they were thus deprived of the aforesaid facilities of electricity, water and telephone as also the meals during the aforesaid period of their wrongful confinement and they were also unable to communicate with any person outside the said premises, not even the office of the company. It is further alleged that these persons also suffered from agony-mental as well as physical-accompanied by a severe shock to their nervous system. Sanjay Wadhawan plaintiff No. 2 was able to inform the management of the Company about the aforesaid wrongful detentions, through a slip written by him and thrown out of the first floor premises to a peon of the Company who was standing outside near the truck carrying the luggage of S. N. Sarma. When the other officers of the Company rushed to the premises in question they demanded and persuaded the landlady defendant no. I to open the door to the staircase whereupon plaintiffs S. N. Sarma and Sanjay Wadhawan together with Mrs. Sarma and Chowkidar Panjan were in a position to come down. Both the parties then complained to the police and on whose intervention the luggage of S. N. Sarma was kept in the tenanted annexe on the second floor of the premises.

(3.) It is also asserted that the defendants are not allowing the plaintiffs and the Company's officers I representatives to so to the first floor premises in the main building and to use the same for the residence of its officer S. N. Sarma plaintiff No. 2, and have threatened to cause obstruction in future, in case any attempt was made by the plaintiff to go to the first floor or park the car on the ground floor of the tenants premises and use the same for the residence of its any other officers including plaintiff no. 2 S. N. Sarma and further that even the essentail. facilities like water, electricity and telephone connections which had been illegally cut-off by the defendants, have lot been restored uptil now as a result of which the Company is unable to use the first floor premises and the parking space on the ground floor any more and enjoy the aforesaid essential amenities since 5-5-1982. The aforesaid telephone connection belongs to the Company.