DINESH KUMAR Vs. MITHLESH & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears for the respondents. They are proceeded ex-parte for the purpose of disposal of this first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 27.1.2017 dismissing the suit for possession and damages filed by the appellant/plaintiff. In fact, the reason for non-appearance of the respondents/defendants is that in the trial court itself, both in their written statement/pleading as also evidence led, the respondents/defendants had stated that they were not in possession of the suit premises.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit for possession against the two respondents/defendants. Respondents/defendants are husband and wife. The case in the plaint was that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner of the suit property being one flat shown in red colour in the site plan being Private Flat No. 15, 3rd Floor, Municipal No. 207-B, Dabri Village, Near Vaishali, Gali No.2, New Delhi. One Sh. Neeraj Maan (name wrongly written as Sh. Satbir Singh Maan in the plaint and in the affidavit by way of evidence) approached the appellant/plaintiff, inasmuch as Sh. Neeraj Maan was a closed friend of the appellant/plaintiff, that Sh. Neeraj Maan was having a collaboration agreement for construction of the property of the respondents/defendants, and therefore, respondents/defendants be allowed to stay in the suit property of the appellant/plaintiff for a period of six months, and this was allowed by the appellant/plaintiff. Since after expiry of six months, the respondents/defendants failed to vacate the suit property, therefore they were served with the legal notice dated 4.6.2012, which too failed to yield the desired result, and therefore the subject suit was filed.

(3.) In the written statement of the respondents/defendants the case of the respondents/defendants was that the suit property was not owned by the appellant/plaintiff but was owned by Sh. S.S. Maan, the father of Sh. Neeraj Maan, and Sh. S.S. Maan had allowed the respondents/defendants to stay in the suit property on account of collaboration agreement entered into by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 with Sh. S.S. Maan. Disputes and differences had arisen between the respondents/defendants and Sh. S.S. Maan and in fact the electricity and water connection of the suit property were disconnected in March 2012 by Sh. S.S. Maan. In para 4 of the written statement, it is specifically pleaded that the respondents/defendants are not residing in the suit premises since more than one year before filing of the written statement, and consequently it was pleaded that how can the respondents/defendants be said to be illegal occupants.