DURGESJWARI DEVI Vs. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT TESEARCH CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking for a decree for possession in respect of the suit premises bearing No. 11, Jor Bagh, New Delhi and also for a decree for a sum of Rs.9.00 lakhs on account of mesne profits/damages for use and occupation of the suit premises from 1.4.1997 to 30.5.97 being the quantified damages agreed to between the parties and also for a decree for payment of damages for Rs.l5,000.00 per day beyond 30th May, 1997 till the eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and for pendente lite and furture interest.

(2.) Along with the suit an interim application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code on which an ad interim exparte injunction was granted on 30th May, 1997 restraining the defendant from sub-letting, assigning or otherwise parting with possession of the whole or part of the premises in question or in any manner creating any third party right therein, until further orders.

(3.) The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing the written statement. A preliminary objection has been raised in the written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 86 CPC. It is stated in the written statement that the defendant is an agency of the State of Canada and thus, has a special status and, therefore, the defendant has special immunity in India. It is further stated that the plaintiff needs due permission and sanction of the Govt. of India for filing the present suit against the defendant and the plaintiff having not sought for any such permission, the suit is not maintainable. The defendant in the written statement has admitted execution of the lease deed with the plaintiff but has contended that the said lease deed was for aperiod of 10 years inasmuch as, as per the provision for increase of 30% of the rent payable, lease was to be extended upto 2004. The defendant, however, has taken up the plea that the lease agreement in isolation is not enforceable as it is a part of rest of the three agreements which have not been placed on record by the plaintiff. The defendant has also stated that the plaintiff has not provided any substantial documentary evidence of ownership of the suit property to the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property.