SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. LAJPAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm No. 14086-CII-2014.

(2.) In brief, the respondent filed the suit under Section 6 of the Act alleging that he was inducted as a tenant in the shop in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- excluding electricity charges w.e.f. 01.11.1998. The rent was increased from time to time and the plaintiff was paying Rs. 2,000/- per month as on date. It is also averred that he has been paying the electricity charges of the demised premises to the department directly. The husband and brother of the petitioner threatened the plaintiff to vacate the demised premises four months prior to the date of dispossession and on the fateful day, i.e. 06.05.2013, the petitioner along with her husband and some unsocial elements, forcibly threw articles of the respondent from the demised premises and locked the shop from outside. The petitioner also took away the photostat machine, fax machine and recharge coupons with them in a tempo. It is further alleged that since the plaintiff was receiving threats of his forcible dispossession, he had installed a CCTV camera in the suit premises but the petitioner before dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises got the electricity supply disconnected from the department. The plaintiff also filed a complaint dated 24.02.2013 to the Incharge of Police Post, Sector-6, Karnal and got registered an FIR No.357 dated 06.05.2013 in this regard. However, no action was taken on his complaint and the respondent was compelled to file the present suit.

(3.) In her reply, the petitioner has alleged that the demised premises was never given on rent and merely by depositing the electricity bill through cheque from his own account does not prove the tenancy of the plaintiff. It was rather contended that the shop in dispute was given on lease by the petitioner to the daughter of the plaintiff, namely, Anju Gupta who had vacated the shop in question in the year 2004 and since then it is lying vacant. It is also alleged that the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant-petitioner filed complaint against each other as the complaints filed by the petitioner were complaint no.488-C-Misc. dated 01.03.2013, complaint no.248-P-II dated 08.03.2013 and complaint no.708-peshi dated 15.03.2013, whereas the complaint filed by the respondent through her son is complaint no.25-Dasti dated 24.02.2013. All these complaints were sent to the In-charge, Community Liason Group, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal for inquiry and settlement. During the course of settlement, husband of the petitioner told the plaintiff that he wanted to sell the shop in dispute and would give first preference to the plaintiff if he is interested in purchasing it but no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. Thereafter, the matter was returned to the In-charge Police Post, Sector-6, Urban Estate, Karnal for further investigation and during the inquiry, it was found that the plaintiff is not the owner of the demised premises and could not produce any rent agreement. It is also stated that the plaintiff and his son Anil Kumar illegally and forcibly occupied the demised premises and not ready to vacate it.