ISHWAR DEVI Vs. ELITE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES
LAWS(DLH)-1983-4-16
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 01,1983

ISHWAR DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
ELITE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RISAL SINGH AND ANOTHER V. MANOHAR LAL AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
OFFICIAL RECEIVER V. CHAVA GOVINDARAJA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. K C ALEXANDER [REFERRED]
MUNSHI MANZOOR ALI KHAN OTHERS VS. SUKHBASI LAL [REFERRED]
RAJ RANI VS. KAILASH CHAND [REFERRED]
LINGAMMA VS. PUTTE GOWDA AND [REFERRED]
NATHULAL VS. AMBARAM [REFERRED]
SUNDER PARMANAND LALWANI VS. CALTEX INDIA LTD [REFERRED]
LILA RAM VS. MOHAR CHAND [REFERRED]
SURAJMAL VS. MANGILAL [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

S.S. Chadha - (1.)The plaintiffs' claim in this suit a declaration that the defendants are illegally and unauthorisedly occupying the area on the terrace floor/first floor of property No 5332, Chandrawal, Road Subzi Mandi, Delhi, as shown yellow in the plan attached with the plaint including room 'H' as shown in the site plan and that the construction on the terrace floor/first floor as raised by the defendants or any of them is illegal. The plaintiffs' claim in addition a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the unauthorised construction on the first floor/terrace floor of the said property. The plaintiffs also claim a decree for delivery of possession of the portion on the first floor/terrace floor of the suit property. The relief further claimed is for ..he recovery of Rs. 10,300.00 being the mesne profits and a decree for pendente lite and future interest @10% per annum.
(2.)The plaint says this. The plaintiffs are the owners and landlords of entire property comprising ground floor, terrace floor and the constructions as raised by them bearing Municipal No. 5332, Chandrawal Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. The plaintiffs had purchased the vacant land beneath the above said building vide an agreement dated March 5, 1954 and the sale-deed subsequently registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Delhi on February 11,1969 making the plaintiffs owners since the date of agreement to sell. The plaintiffs applied to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for permission lo construct the building on the said plot and the requisite permission was granted. The plaintiffs constructed the entire ground floor of the building and on the first floor construction upto door level in the front area was raised by the plaintiffs. A completion certificate was obtained from the Corporation by the plaintiffs.
(3.)The averments further are that defendant No. 2 vide rent deed dated July, 10, 1961 became tenant of the plaintiffs in his individual capacity in respect of one big hall, two small rooms, 3 mazanines, one bathroom and one W.C. on the ground floor at a rent of Rs. 400.00 per month. Two rooms on the ground floor in addition were let out to defendant No. 2 in his individual capacity in August, 1963 at Rs. 90.00 per month. Defendant No. 3 became tenant in his individual capacity of the plaintiffs in respect of a portion on the ground floor with effect from October 1, 1961 at a rent of Rs. 50.00 per month and thereafter another portion was let out to defendant No. 3 in his individual capacity at a rent of Rs. 35.00 per month on the ground floor. The other portions of the ground floor have been let out to other tenants. The case of the plaintiffs is that with regard to the first floor of the suit property, the parda walls in the back portion were constructed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also constructed in addition to other portions a Chhajja (projection) on the first floor on the front portion of the property. The plaintiffs also constructed two rooms as shown as 'G' and 'H' in the plan on the first floor and room 'G' was given by the plaintiffs to their own relative and room 'H' was let out to one tenant who remained in occupation of that room till 1966. After room 'R' became vacant in 1966, defendant No. 2 approached the plaintiffs and sought their permission to occupy this room as a licensee to be vacated as and when desired by the plaintiffs. With regard to the remaining portion on the first floor, this area remained unconstructed and uncovered till 1965 when defendant No. 1 through defendants 2 and 3 started storing their scrap material on the terrace which was objected to by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' claim that they had free access to the terrace floor till 1973 as the above-said portion never had any door and was never capable of being in exclusive possession of the defendants.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.