GEETA MOHAN Vs. BALDEV RAJ HASIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has alleged that she is the owner of property No. 2287/ I situated at More Sarai Barafkhana, Koriapul, Delhi and had agreed to let out her share of the property - 4000 sq. feet in area to the defendant No. 1 by means of an agreement dated 1.6.1993 at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500.00 ; for this a regular lease deed was to be executed and registered, but the defendant failed to do so and is in unauthorised possession as a trespasser. In the alternative, it is alleged that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 18.10.1996. The plaintiff in this suit has claimed the following reliefs against defendant No. 1 : 1. Decree for possession of the premises. 2. Decree for recovery of Rs. l,62,000.00 as damages foruse and occupation.

(2.) In the plaint it is further alleged that the property was inspected by the officials of defendant No. 2 on 19.11.1997 and they are threatening to demolish and/ or seal the property in connivance with defendant No. 1, which cannot be done without notice as contemplated under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. A separate decree of injunction is sought against defendant No. 2 for restraining from demolishing and/or sealing the aforesaid property or any portion thereof without serving show cause notices as required under Sections 343(1) and 345-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

(3.) In para 18 of the plaint different and separate dates of causes of action have been alleged against defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2.