LAWS(DLH)-1998-5-105

SAPNA SINGH PATHANI Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER MEHTA

Decided On May 14, 1998
SAPNA SINGH PATHANIA Appellant
V/S
JAGDISH CHANDER MEHTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I.A. No. 6479 /97 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') of the plaintiffs and I.A. No. 7831 / 97 under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Code, of the defendants for vacating the interim order passed on August 1, 1997 are being disposad of.

(2.) The plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking injunction against the defendants No. I and 2, mandatory injunction against defendants No. 3 and 4 and a declaration of tenancy against defendant No. 1.

(3.) Briefly, the averments made in the plaint are that plaintiff No. 1 is a tenant in property No. J-341, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, having been inducted by defendant No. 1 w.e.f. 1.4.1996 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500.00 . Plaintiff No. 2 is her hubsband living with her; at the time the premises were let out, father of plaintiff No. 1 late Shri Prem Nath Ghai had paid Rs.33,000.00 by means of two cheques dated 26.3.1996 each of Rs. 16,500.00 towards security and out of which Rs. 7,500.00 were paid towards rent for the months of April to June, 1996. The plaintiffs further paid monthly rent by means of cheques of Rs. 2,500 / -; the second week of May, 1997 the defendants No. 1 and 2 accompanied by bad elements tried to forcibly evict the plaintiffs for which a complaint was lodged and the local police had warned them not to dispossess tine plaintiffs. Again on 28.7.1997, at about 8.45 a.m., defendants No. 1 and 2 along with some anti-serial elements came to the suit premises to dispossess the plaintiffs and locked one bedroom having independent entry from outside; and in the morning on 30.7.1997, they again came, broke open the door of the said room, removed the goods of the plaintiffs, placed their own goods in that room and locked from outside. Some of the goods of the plaintiffs are still lying in that room. A complaint about it was lodged with the local police on 30.7.1997 but it appears that the local police is in collusion with the defendants No. 1 and 2 and have shown lack of concern.