(1.) The respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') filed Suit No. 100/1996 on the Original Side of this Court. In the said suit, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the appellant herein (hereafter referred as the 'defendant Nos. 1 and 2') to pay to the defendant No.3/Land and Development Officer (LandDO) misuse charges as imposed by LandDO in respect of the suit premises 11, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi. Further direction to the effect that LandDO be directed to take a final decision in the matter of imposition and/or waiver of misuse charges be taken by it is also sought.
(2.) It may be pointed out that the plaintiff had let out the suit premises to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. As per the LandDO, letting out of these premises was in violation of the terms of the lease and, therefore, it proposed to levy the penalty for misuse charges. This led the plaintiff to file the aforesaid suit for mandatory injunction, inter alia, praying that if any such misuse charges are payable, those should be paid by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
(3.) We may also note at this stage that in another case between the defendants and the landlady the tenancy was terminated with effect from 1.4.1997 and the defendants called upon the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to surrender the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff. When this request of the said landlady was not acceded to, she instituted Suit No. 1231/1997 for possession as well as mesne profits with pendente lite and future interest. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 put in appearance in the said suit and challenged the maintainability thereof on the ground that these defendants were the 'foreign state' within the meaning of Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, the 'Code') and, therefore, no such suit was maintainable without seeking prior consent of the Central Government, as required under Section 86 of the Code. This issue was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the said suit and plea of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was rejected holding that it could not be treated as an agency of the Government of Canada and, therefore, provisions of Section 86 of the Code were not applicable. The said judgment is reported as Durgeshwari Devi v. International Development Research Centre, 79 (1999) DLT 750. Appeal against that judgment was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court, which was registered as FAO (OS) No. 33/1999 and was admitted to hearing.