HARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of possession of the premisesdescribed in schedule attached to the plaint and also for payment of damagesamounting to Rs. 1,96,000.00 together with future damages for use and occupa-tion of the premises @ Rs 100.00 per day from the date of suit till the plaintiffgets actual possession of the premises.

(2.) The suit is grounded on the allegations that the plaintiff is theManaging Trustee of Arya Vaidyasala, Kottakkal (hereinafter referred to asthe 'Vaidyasala'), a charitable trust, and is competent to file the suit. Thedefendant is residing on the second floor of building. E-76, South ExtensionPart I, New Delhi belonging to Vaidyasala in which the plaintiff is also running its Medical Centre at New Delhi. In fact this Medical Centre of theplaintiff at New Delhi was started in February, 1982 and with a view toestablishing necessary contracts with the Govt. Departments, ForeignEmbassies, visiting dignitaries of foreign countries etc. and having necessaryliaison work at New Delhi for the Medical Centre the defendant wasappointed as the Coordination Officer at New Delhi with effect from 1/05/1982. Since the defendant was residing in a remote area of Delhi, athis request, he was allowed to use one room and kitchen on the 2nd floorof the premises, as a special case and on a temporary basis, on the specificunderstanding that the room and kitchen which are really a portion of theGuest House of the Vaidyasala buildings at South Extension, New Delhiwould be given vacant possession to the plaintiff as and when required by theplaintiff. It was also made clear that this permission to use the room andkitchen on a temporary basis would not give any claims to the defendant forresidence or H.R.A. in lieu of residence at a future date etc. The defendantafter accepting these terms and conditions was allowed to occupy the aforementioned premises.

(3.) The defendant worked as Coordination Officer for more than3 yrs. and by this time the Medical Centre at New Delhi became well established and there was not much of coordination work to be attended to and itwas found that the work of the Vaidyasala could be conveniently got donethrough the Manager and Physician Incharge of the Medical Centre and thatthe continuance of the post of Coordination Officer at New Delhi was not onlycounter productive but was superfluous and unnecessary. Therefore, the Boardof Trustees vide resolution No. 14(d) dated 19/01/1986 decided toabolish the post of Coordination Officer at New Delhi with the result that theservices of the defendant were terminated w.e.f. 31.1.1986 (A.N.) by proceedingNo. 36740 dated 24.1.1986 after tendering to the defendant a cheque forRs. 9,427.50 being 3 months' salary in lieu of notice and 2 month's salary asex-gratia compensation for the services rendered by him. The defendant wasfurther directed to vacate the portion of the building in Ins occupation withinfour works w.c.f. 1.2.1986, i.e., on or before 28.2.1986. The defendant did notaccept the cheque nor did. be vacate the premises occupied by him as residencethough he was given sufficient time to vacate in spite of lawyer's notice dated 6/05/1986 but of no use.