UTTAM SINGH Vs. RAGHUBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants through the present appeal have taken exception to a judgment and order dated November 20, 1996 passed by an Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby he allowed the application moved by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No. 1 for the sake of convenience) for the grant of mandatory injunction directing the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants in order to facilitate the reference) to hand over possession over the property bearing No. 3443(1/2), Gali Lallu Missar, Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property for the sake of brevity).

(2.) Brief facts which gave rise to the present appeal are as under: that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against the appellants herein with the allegations that the respondent No. 1 is the owner/landlord of the property bearing Municipal No. 3443(2), Gali Lallu Missar, Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He let out the said property to one Pt. Kishan Chand son of Shri Tare Chand in the year 1951-52 shown by red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. The said Pt. Kishan Chand has illegally sub let, assigned or parted with possession over the said property to the appellant No. 1 without the consent of the respondent. Consequently the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for eviction against the said Pt. Kishan Chand under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The said suit was registered as eviction Petition No. 130/92. The said petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated March 9, 1994 and an order of eviction was passed against the said Pt. Kishan Chand).

(3.) Respondent No. 1 thereafter applied for execution of the said order whereupon learned Additional Rent Controller issued warrants of possession in favour of the respondent No. 1 against the said Pt. Kishan Chand. The said order of eviction was executed through the bailiff of the Court on August 22, 1994 and the respondent No. 1 was delivered the vacant possession over the disputed property on the aforementioned date at about 4.30 p.m.