MR. PANNA LAL Vs. MRS. NEELAM CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two applications being IA Nos. 8750/2008 under Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant to direct the plaintiff to pay use and occupation charges to the former in respect of the premises bearing Shop No. 58 -B, Khan Market, New Delhi till the pendency of the counter claim and IA No. 8748/2008 filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of counter claim of the defendant.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff, Shri Panna Lal, filed the present suit for permanent injunction against Smt. Neelam Chopra, praying therein to pass a decree for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff and his sons from the premises in dispute i.e. Shop No. 58 -B, Khan Market, New Delhi. During the pendency of the suit, in IA No. 6884/2007 and IA No. 6865/2007 the learned Counsel for the plaintiff on 11th February, 2008 offered to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - towards the use and occupation charges of the suit premises on monthly basis w.e.f. 10.05.2007 till the date of the passing of the order i.e. 11.02.2008. It was also observed in the said order that the said payment of the amount made by the plaintiff and received by the defendant would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

(3.) THE case of the defendant in the written statement is that she is the owner of shop bearing No. 58 -B, Khan Market, New Delhi and that she has always been in possession of the shop and has been running a business from the said shop under the name and style of 'M/s. Allied Fruit and Florists'. The defendant has always been in control of the business being conducted from the shop. The said shop was purchased by the defendant vide a duly registered Sale Deed dated 19th November, 1969. The plaintiff and his sons were employees of defendant. Over a period of time, the plaintiff established faith and confidence with the defendant and performed various responsibilities of the defendant's business. The plaintiff impersonated himself as a proprietor of the proprietary concern of the defendant and with connivance of his three sons lodged a false complaint at police station Tuglak Road for the theft of Rs. 4.5 lakhs from the said shop. Thus, the plaintiff committed fraud and criminal breach of trust for which he is liable to be prosecuted.