ASHOK BAJAJ Vs. LALIT BAJAJ & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit pleading i) that the plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner of property No.296, Asian Games Village Complex, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in the name of the plaintiff in the year 1987; ii) that the plaintiff holds an Overseas Citizen of India Card and resides along with his wife between USA and India and the plaintiff and his family reside in the aforesaid property whenever in India and the plaintiff has been paying property tax and utility bills with respect to the property; iii) that the plaintiff allowed the defendants no.1 and 2, being the brother of the plaintiff and the wife of the said brother of the plaintiff, to reside in the aforesaid property due to the fact that the financial condition of the defendant no.1 was weak and he was living in a rented accommodation at that time; sometime thereafter in the year 1993-94, the parents of the plaintiff who were then residing at Kanpur, also shifted to Delhi and started residing in the aforesaid property along with the two defendants; iv) that the plaintiff also executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 14th April, 1987 in favour of defendant no.1, to enable the defendant no.1 to look after the property during the absence of the plaintiff; the said GPA was cancelled vide public notice dated 15th June, 2013; v) that the father of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 died in the year 1996; vi) that the plaintiff, in the year 2017, got the leasehold rights in the property converted into freehold by paying the requisite charges therefor; vii) that the plaintiff, during his visit to India in November, 2012, requested the defendants to find another accommodation; viii) that the defendant no.1 requested the plaintiff to grant some time to the defendant no.1 to look for accommodation and promised to vacate by 31st March, 2013; ix) however in April, 2013, the mother of the plaintiff filed a false suit which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, District South, Saket Courts, New Delhi; the said suit was got filed in the name of the mother by the defendant no.1, taking advantage of the old age of the mother; the said suit was disposed of on the plaintiff making a statement in the Court not to dispossess the defendants save by due process of law; and, x) that the defendants thereafter blocked the access of the plaintiff to the aforesaid property except one room therein and thereafter the belongings of the plaintiff and his family lying in the said property were also removed.

(2.) On the aforesaid pleas, the plaintiff seeks the reliefs of i) eviction / ejectment of the defendants from the aforesaid property and of recovery of possession thereof; ii) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove themselves and their belongings from the property; and, iii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the use by the plaintiff of the property and from creating any third party interest in the property or parting with possession thereof to any other person.

(3.) The suit was entertained and the defendants have filed a written statement pleading i) that the defendants have been residing in the property since the date of allotment thereof in the year 1987 and the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation; ii) that the defendants no.1 and 2 are not licensees of the plaintiff in the property and no license deed was ever executed between the parties; iii) that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction; iv) that the plaintiff, his wife and children are permanently settled outside India; v) that the plaintiff took up a quarrel with the mother on the occasion of the marriage of the daughter of the defendants in November, 2012 inasmuch as the plaintiff wanted the mother to sign some papers which the mother had refused and the plaintiff used the said quarrel to extract jewellery from the mother; vi) that the plaintiff had attempted to forcibly dispossess the defendants and the mother of the parties from the property and which led to the institution of the suit for injunction by the mother and in which regard a police complaint was also filed; vii) that the plaintiff had entered into a Family Settlement after the death of the father of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and according to which the aforesaid property was to be transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 as the plaintiff had already taken entire sale consideration of the property and most of the jewellery of the parents as well as Rs.9.40 lacs from the father of the parties; viii) that the payment for purchase of the aforesaid property had to be made in foreign currency as per the DDA and it was not possible for anyone else except the plaintiff to arrange the foreign currency and thus the property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff; and, ix) that all the bills with respect to the property have been paid by the defendants.