PHILOMENA GERVASE Vs. RAVIN MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal at hand is by the plaintiff whose prayer for ad interim injunction has been declined by the civil court.

(2.) On the strength, inter alia, of documents in the nature of Agreement to Sell, Special Power of Attorney (SPA), General Power of Attorney (GPA), Will, Receipt etc. all dated 24.02.1999, purportedly executed by the original allottee Prem Nath Mehra (late father of the first respondent), the first appellant claims to be the owner of property described as Pocket-R(U) Block, flat no. 379 (ground floor), MIG flat, Pitampura, Delhi (the subject property), it concededly being a property developed by second respondent i.e. Delhi Development Authority (DDA). It appears Prem Nath Mehra (original allottee) had died on 08.02.2008. On the basis of application moved by the first respondent (son of the original allottee), DDA executed a conveyance deed in respect of the subject property in his favour on 16.01.2012. On the strength of the said conveyance deed, the first respondent brought the eviction case on ground of bona fide need under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against the appellants before additional rent controller inasmuch as the subject property concededly was earlier given by the original allottee on lease in favour of the appellants, in the year 1989, the said lease being governed by the rent restriction law on account of the contractual rate of rent. An eviction order was passed, the challenge whereto in the revisional jurisdiction to this Court remained unsuccessful. Though it is the case of the appellants that a special leave petition has been preferred against the said decision in the rent control proceedings, presently pending before the Supreme Court, there is concededly no interim protection granted.

(3.) A civil suit was filed on 10.01.2019, in which prayer was made, inter alia, for certain declatory reliefs, the appellants asserting their right, title and interest in the subject property, claiming that the conveyance deed granted by the DDA in favour of the first respondent is null and void. In the course of proceedings in the said civil suit, an application was also moved under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking ad interim injunction from selling, parting with, alienation, creation of any third party interest in respect of the subject property, as also a restraint order against interference with the possession thereof. The said application was dismissed by the additional district judge, by order dated 16.07.2019 on the file of the civil suit (CS no. 53/2019) primarily on the basis of observation that no prima facie case had been made out. The present appeal under Order XLIII CPC challenges the said order dated 16.07.2019 of the additional district judge.