PRAVEEN NARANG Vs. DINESH GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for possession, permanent injunction and damages for illegal use and occupation of the property bearing No. G-48, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. The portion of the said property in possession of the defendants is shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that one Smt. Sita Devi Narang was the owner of the suit property who had executed a registered Will dated 26.04.1988 and had thereby bequeathed the above referred property to him. The plaintiff is the son of Shri S.S. Narang who was the younger brother of the husband of Smt. Sita Devi Narang. On the death of Smt. Sita Devi Narang in July, 1991, the plaintiff filed a Probate Case No. 263/1991 and letters of administration were granted to him in respect of the property in suit on 16.10.1992. Thereafter, both the L&DO and MCD mutated the property in favour of the plaintiff by 1995. It is alleged that the plaintiff had permitted the defendants to stay in the scheduled premises as a measure of goodwill for the last seven years preceding the filing of the present suit. Since the plaintiff wanted the suit accommodation for his own use, he vide his letter dated 25.06.2001 asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises. The plaintiff also sent legal notices dated 20.09.2001 and 22.09.2001 informing the defendants that they were in unlawful possession of the suit property as they no longer had leave or licence of the plaintiff to stay in the said premises. The plaintiff is stated to have not received any reply to his legal notice from the defendants. Since the defendants failed to vacate the suit premises despite service of legal notices dated 20.09.2001 and 22.09.2001, the plaintiff has filed this suit against them seeking a decree of possession and also a decree of damages for illegal use and occupation of the suit property by the defendants @ Rs. 15,000/- per month with effect from 07.10.2001 till realization. This suit was filed by the plaintiff on 05.04.2002.

(3.) THE plaintiff in his replication to the written statement of the defendants has reiterated the fact that the predecessor-in-title of the defendants, namely, Late Shri Ram Prakash Gulati was inducted into suit premises by plaintiff's predecessor-in-title late Smt. Sita Devi Narang in 1972 merely as a licensee. The plaintiff has reiterated that the predecessor-in-title of the defendants was brought into the suit premises by late Smt. Sita Devi Narang because late Shri R.P. Gulati was distantly related to late Smt. Sita Devi Narang and also because of the fact that after the demise of her husband Smt. Sita Devi Narang in her old age, she was feeling lonely and wanted somebody to take care of her. The plaintiff has refuted the claim of ownership by adverse possession set up by the defendants in their written statement. The plaintiff has re-asserted its claim for possession and also for recovery of damages at market rate for use and occupation of the suit premises by the defendants ever since the date their license was terminated vide legal notices dated 20.09.2001 and 22.09.2001. The plaintiff has denied all the allegations which are inconsistent and contrary to his averments contained in the plaint and in specific reply thereto, he has reiterated, re-asserted and re-affirmed the averments contained in his plaint to be correct.