AMRIK SINGH Vs. NITU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs. In the suit the plaintiff has claimed that he was in occupation of one room, kitchen and open varandah with attached bathroom and one room on the ground floor of property bearing no. 2591, Mandi Wali Gali, Shadi Khampur, west Patel Nagar, New Delhi. He had taken this property on rent sometime in year 1982 from Sh. Mohan Singh and his monthly rent was Rs. 220/ -. The electricity and water connections in the property were in the name of Sh. Bachan singh, father of Sh. Mohan Singh. He had very cordial relations with Sh. Mohan singh and he had paid rent to Sh. Mohan Singh till March, 2007. Sh. Mohan Singh lives in England and visits India after every 3-4 years and collects rent in cash from him. The last rent paid was uptill March, 2007. On his each visit, sh. Mohan Singh assured him that he should continue to reside in the property. However, defendants and Shambu who are local goons threatened to dispossess him and his family from the property in May, 2007 and claimed that Sh. Mohan Singh had sold the property to him. After this threat, the plaintiff filed a suit against Sh. Mohan Singh and Shambhu for permanent injunction before Civil Judge, delhi in May, 2007. A similar attempt was made by Sh. Mohan Singh about dispossessing him in year 2000 so he had filed a suit before Civil Judge, Tis hazari being a Suit No. 728/2000. He alleged that an interim injunction was passed against Sh. Mohan Singh but the relations of Sh. Mohan Singh and plaintiff became cordial after filing the suit. In June, 2007, he also filed an fir with P. S. Patel Nagar against the defendants.

(2.) THE plaintiff submitted that on 22nd May, 2008, the defendants along with a person who claimed himself to be an officer of MCD visited the property and started inspection and complained that structure of property was weak. These persons sent for labours and demolished a wall of the property. Consequently, the toilet on the first floor got demolished and came down. This was an act of mischief done by the defendants who were hand in glove with the staff of MCD. The plaintiff valued the suit for purpose of Court fees at rs. 20,00,100/ -.

(3.) THE statement of the plaintiff under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC has been recorded. At the very outset plaintiff stated he did not know what was written in the plaint. Plaint was not read over to him. The facts stated in the plaint are altogether different from what is stated in the statement made by the plaintiff. While the plaintiff in the suit has stated the he was a tenant under sh. Mohan Singh and in his statement under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC he claimed that he was tenant under Sh. Mohan Singh and Sh. Chidhar Singh. He had taken on rent a part of the first floor from Sh. Mohan Singh about 25 years ago. He took ground floor and part of the first floor on rent from Chidhar Singh, brother of Sh. Mohan Singh in the year 2000 or 2001, despite the fact that he filed a suit against Sh. Mohan Singh. The suit filed by the plaintiff in year 2000 against sh. Mohan Singh was also not brought to a logical end and was allowed to be dismissed in default. The plaintiff in his statement under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC stated that defendant was proceeded ex parte in that suit and his counsel advised that since defendant was ex parte, he need not come to the Court. He therefore did not go to the Court. About his suit filed in 2007 before the civil Judge, he had no information as to whether any injunction was granted or not.