ANIL KUMAR MARWAH Vs. DEEPAK SUNDER
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ANIL KUMAR MARWAH
Click here to view full judgement.
A.K.Sikri, J. -
(1.) In order to make thing simple and avoid any confusion while taking note of the facts of this case, we propose to give the same description to the parties as appeared in the suit.
(2.) The plaintiff (the respondent No. 1 herein) filed two suits which were primarily against the defendant No. 1 (the appellant herein). One suit was for possession and mesne profits and prayer made in the other suit was for permanent injunction. The suits related to room Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the First Floor of House No. J-125, Saket, New Delhi. The case of the plaintiff was that Sh. P.R. Mittal/defendant No. 2 was the owner of the suit property. He let out the property to his son Sh. Surender Kumar who was operating a Gust House under the name and style "Saket Gust House". Sh. Surender Kumar died on 4.5.1992 leaving behind his legal heirs who were impleaded as the defendant Nos. 3, 4 & 5. In this Gust House, the defendant No. 1 was inducted as a lodger in room Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 on the First Floor thereof for a period of three months under an Agreement to Licence dated 8.4.1988.
(3.) After the death of Sh. Surender Kumar, his legal heirs namely the defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 surrendered their tenancy rights to the owner of the house namely the defendant No. 2 vide letter dated 24.4.1993 including the fixtures, fittings, telephone and geysers etc. On 6.5.1993, the defendant No. 2 sold the First Floor of the property along with a mezzanine to the plaintiff for valuable consideration and executed the documents transferring the property. Since the defendant No. 1 was in physical possession of the property, who was inducted as lodger by Sh. Surender Kumar, as mentioned above, constructive possession of the suit property was also delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 2 as part performance. The defendant No. 2, vide registered letter dated 3.9.1993, informed the defendant No. 1 about the sale of suit property and required the defendant No. 1 to attorn to the plaintiff and to pay room charges, licence fee etc. to the plaintiff as per licence agreement dated 8.4.1988. It would be necessary to point out at this stage that though, vide licence agreement dated 8.4.1988, the defendant No. 1 was inducted as a lodger for a period of three months, he had not vacated the premises and filed the suit for permanent injunction in the year 1992 being suit No. 379/1992 against the defendant No. 2 (who was the owner before the sale of the property by the defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff). In this suit, he had stated that he was a tenant in the premises on monthly rent of Rs. 6,900/-.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.