SANJAY GUPTA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of possession in respect of suit property measuring 22 x 15 feet situated in property bearing No.E-27/4, Gopinath Building, E Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. A decree of permanent injunction and mesne profit @ Rs,1,00,000/- per month is also sought in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant from the date of institution of the present suit till the date of delivery of vacant peaceful possession of the suit property.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the suit property being property bearing No.E-27/4, Gopinath Building, E Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi admeasuring 8000 Sq.Ft.. The said property consists of an open courtyard admeasuring 6300 Sq.Ft. and 1700 Sq.Ft. of covered area. The open courtyard in the said property consists of two temporary structures i.e. one tin shed open on three (3) sides admeasuring 330 Sq.Ft. and one tin shed enclosed on four sides admeasuring 550 Sq.Ft. The said tin structure measuring 330 Sq.Ft. was given on license to the father of the defendant sometimes way back in 1960s. It is stated that the father of the plaintiff was a car enthusiast and had a passion of repairing, redesigning, refurbishing and modifying his cars. The father of the defendant had introduced himself to the father of the plaintiff as a car mechanic who was acquainted with the servicing and repairing of cars. He was given the premises as a licensee. The defendant's father used the said property for repairing and servicing cars and also operating a Lathe machine which is required for specific and certain type of repairs. On 20.1.2012 the father of the defendant Shri Ved Prakash passed away. Consequent upon his death, the defendant occupied the suit property and continued to use the same for repairing and servicing cars and also operating a Lathe machine. Ultimately on account of disturbances caused by the defendant while using the property the plaintiff terminated the license. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 10.10.2017 revoking the license. Despite receipt of the legal notice it is pleaded that the defendant did not vacate the suit property. In fact on 13.10.2017 it is pleaded that the plaintiff was surprised to receive a letter dated 9.10.2017 from the defendant seeking to pay to the plaintiff an alleged rent of Rs. 200/- towards the suit premises for the months of June 2017 to September 2017 by way of a demand draft. It was further stated in the communication that the plaintiff had refused to accept cash payment towards rent of the suit premises. Hence, the said communication. Thereafter the defendant also sent a reply to the legal notice dated, 16.10.2017 reiterating that the defendant is not a licensee but a tenant in the suit premises.

(3.) After the pleadings were completed the plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing of a decree. On 29.1.2018 this court while dealing with the said application being IA 1327/2018 granted liberty to the counsel for the plaintiff to urge passing of a decree forthwith under Order 15 Rule 1 of CPC when the matter is listed for framing of issues.