AFROZ BEGUM Vs. GUFRANI BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Shamima Bano and others filed a suit for permanent injunction with regard to Shop No-1270 at Phatak Farashkhana, Delhi, claiming that late Abdul Sattar was the tenant of the said shop and that they happened to be his legal heirs. They impleaded two defendants, one Shri Ramesh Chander, who happened to be the landlord and the other Smt. Afroz Begum. It may be noticed that Afroz Begum is the widow of one Salahuddin who too was a son of late Abdul Sattar. Salahuddin had died issueless. The plaintiffs claimed that they were in actual physical possession of the shop and that Afroz Begum was trying to interfere with the same. Alongwith the suit was moved an application for interim injunction which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge though by means of a cryptic order. Afroz Begum then went in appeal. While hearing the appeal, at the suggestion of the parties counsel, a local Commissioner was appointed to go to the spot and report as to who was in actual physical possession of the premises. It appears that the local Commissioner visited the premises on the same very day and reported that at the time of his visit the shop was lying open, that the keys of the lock were with one Mohd. Naseem and that besides said Mr. Naseem son of late Mohd. lqbal, one Mohd. Shakeel son of late Mirazuddin and two of the plaintiffs namely, Shamina Bano and Gufrani Begum were found sitting in the shop. The learned Senior Civil Judge on the basis of that report held that prima facie the possession was with the plaintiffs. Consequently, he affirmed the order of ad interim injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge. Needless to say, Afroz Begum has found both the orders unpalatable. Hence, this civil revision.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before me that Mohd. Naseem who was found in possession of the key of the lock happens to be the adopted son of the petitioner and that Shamina Bano and Gufrani Begum had come to the shop only after the arrival at the spot of the local Commissioner. He submits that since Naseem happens to be the adopted son of the petitioner and as he admittedly had the key of the lock, therefore, it ought to have been held that it was the petitioner who was in possession of the shop and not the respondents-plaintiffs, moreso as Shamina & Gufrani Begum had come to the shop only after the arrival of the local Commissioner at the shop.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that Naseem is not the adopted son of the petitioner and that Shamina and Gufani Begum were already in possession of the shop and were sitting there before the arrival of the local Commissioner.