PURSHOTTAM RAMNANI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india read with Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the Petitioner with following prayers:

(2.) THE Petitioner has contended that he knew one Mr. Raj Kumar bansal and his wife Urvashi Bansal (Respondent No. 4 ). Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal requested him for financial help and the Petitioner extended all financial help to him from time to time. Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal used to repay the loan to the petitioner. Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal and Urvashi Bansal had no child and they adopted a baby girl Neelambri Bansal. They invested money to purchase three flats numbers 1, 53 and 198 in Swastik Kunj, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi between 10. 3. 1995 to 29. 12. 1995. The Petitioner had started the business of construction and developing of buildings by that time and he renovated and decorated Flat No. 1, Swastik Kunj at the request of Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal. Quarrels started between Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal and his wife Urvashi Bansal. The petitioner in order to help them, renovated the second flat no. 198, Swastik kunj so as to rent it out and have some running income. The flat was let out to one Shri Ramesh Kumar at the monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/- per month.

(3.) IN March 2000, due to the strained relations, Urvashi Bansal was turned out by her husband Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal from flat no. 1, Swastik Kunj and she started living with her mother. After being turned out she approached the petitioner and requested for financial assistance. Petitioner claims that he advanced a loan of Rs. 5 lac to her for renovation of 3rd flat i. e. flat no. 53, swastik Kunj. She spent about Rs. 2. 5 lac on the renovation of that flat and started living there. Thereafter, she started seeking financial help from the petitioner from time to time. Petitioner used to treat her as his sister. He advanced a fresh loan of Rs. 10 lac to her and assisted her in the legal battle against her husband and also assisted her in continuation of studies of her adopted daughter. Since she could not repay the loan availed from the petitioner, she executed a Power of Attorney in Petitioner's favour in respect of flats no. 1 and 198, Swastik Kunj, Sector-13, Rohini and confirmed that so long as the loan taken by her was not returned, the Petitioner could retain the power of Attorney of the two flats. She handed over the vacant physical possession of flat no. 198, Swastik Kunj to the Petitioner. She then asked the petitioner to shift to flat no. 53, Swastik Kunj and both started living in same flat. The Petitioner claims that he disposed of his father's flat no. B-144, karam Pura, Delhi and started living with Respondent No. 4 at 53, Swastik Kunj since May, 2003. He also advanced another loan of Rs. 8 lac to her and in lieu of that Respondent No. 4 handed over all the original documents pertaining to flat no. 53, Swastik Kunj to him and also executed an undertaking in his favour affirming that she will repay the loan amount along with interest within a span of five years and in case she failed to repay the amount, the Petitioner would become the owner of the said flat. Petitioner further claims that in October, 2005 he again advanced another loan of Rs. 10 lac to her. In lieu of the said loan she gave him two post dated cheques of Rs. 5 lac each. These two cheques later got dis-honoured on presentation. On 24. 11. 2006, Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal, husband of Urvashi Bansal died and on this she and her daughter shifted to flat no. 1, Swastik Kunj, where Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal used to live, and started living there. Petitioner continued living at flat no. 53 exclusively.