ABHAY TANDON Vs. MANJU TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm No. 9407 C of 2019

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the plaintiff/respondent herein (henceforth called as 'the respondent') filed a suit against the defendant/appellant herein (henceforth called as 'the appellant') for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit. In the suit, it was averred that the suit property had been initially allotted in the name of the respondent's husband, namely Shri Ravi Shanker Tandon vide allotment letter and physical possession of the suit property had been handed over on 1.10.2002. Shri Ravi Shanker expired on 30.9.2003. The respondent had been named as a nominee and on his death the two sons of the respondent, namely Amit Tandon and Abhay Tandon-defendant, had voluntarily given NOC/affidavit on the stamp paper for transfer of the suit property in the name of their mother, namely Manju Tandon-respondent. On the basis of the NOC, conveyance deed dated 2.2.2011 was executed by the Society in favour of the respondent and the same was registered before the office of the Sub Registrar, Gurugram. The respondent, along with her two sons were residing over the suit property and continued to reside together till such time a dispute arose within the family. The elder son of the respondent, namely Amit Tandon got a job in Indore and started residing there and the respondent on account of the dispute with her younger son, namely Abhay Tandon-appellant started residing with her elder son. When the respondent asked the appellant and his wife to vacate the suit property, the appellant requested his mother to allow the utilization of one bedroom and common area of the suit property till he finds a suitable accommodation and it was decided that a sum of Rs. 4,000/- would be paid as licence fee for utilization of the accommodation. However, the appellant started using rest of the suit property without consent of the respondent and also did not allow her to enter the premises. Subsequently, a family settlement was arrived at on 7.5.2011 and in terms of the settlement, it was agreed that the suit property shall be sold for the highest price within a period of six months to a prospective buyer. The suit property could not be sold as the appellant did not allow the respondent to enter the suit property. Eventually, the respondent served a legal notice dated 1.9.2012 on the appellant and terminated the licence of the appellant. A demand of Rs. 2,31,693/- was also raised for utilization of the suit property w.e.f. February 2010 till July 2013 with interest. As the appellant refused to make the payment or vacate the suit property, the respondent had no option but to file the suit.

(3.) On notice, the appellant-defendant appeared raising the plea of maintainability. It was averred that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant as alleged by the respondent, while further contending that the property was a HUF property purchased by Shri Ravi Shanker Tandon and the defendant being one of the legal heirs was entitled to a share in the same. It was submitted that the suit property had never been given on a monthly licence fee as alleged in the plaint, while further arguing that as per the settlement, the property was to be sold and out of the sale proceeds, the respondent was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 15 lacs and the remaining amount was to be disbursed between the appellant and his elder brother- Amit Tandon in equal share. It was denied that the appellant was liable to pay any arrears of rent or mesne profits as claimed.