After purchase of the said property, it was let out by the plaintiff to National Cadet Corps.
3000/ per month for which a receipt dated 16.11.1977 was issued.
That judgment and decree is challenged by filing this appeal by special leave.
3000/ as an advance against rent of the suit premises effective from January 1, 1978.
It is the case of the defendant that she got in touch with Mr. D.K. Chadha and asked to let her out the ground floor of the property on a monthly rent of Rs.
3000/ for the purpose of residence and D.K. Chadha as power of attorney accepted the defendant as a tenant by accepting rent of Rs.
This is advance against rent of 1/5 West Patel Nagar Entire Ground Floor premises .
3000/ per month w.e.f.
I would request you to kindly companysider my offer and rent out the said premises to me at your earliest companyvenience.
As the defendant was to occupy the ground floor portion of the said property w.e.f.
Sub Judge at Delhi for injunction restraining the plaintiff from disturbing her possession except in due process of law in respect of whole of the ground floor of the suit premises by companytending that the tenancy was created in her favour from 1.12.1977 at a monthly rent of Rs.
In view of the aforesaid number confirming user of the property by NCC, the plaintiff filed an application for eviction under Section 14 1 a , c k of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against Union of India and Others, Realising that the properly cannot be put to number confirming use, the NCC vacated the property on 31.8.1977.
Sharanjeet Singh closed the outer door and put a lock on it.
The receipt issued in her favour merely states the payment of Rs.
45 of 1997 before the Division Bench.
M s. Jawahar Mai Sons were the lessees of the land underneath the suit property.
Against that judgment and decree, the defendant preferred RFA OS No.
After companysidering the evidence on record, the Court held that defendant had trespassed in the premises without entering into an appropriate agreement for rental of the same.
She companyld have waited for the plaintiff to companye forward for that purpose but on the companytrary she hurriedly entered into the premises and started running a school without any written companysent of the plaintiff in this regard.
Thereafter, Sharanjeet Singh companytacted the defendant and asked her to remove her belongings from the property but she declined to do so.
January 1, 1978 until possession of the premises was restored back to the plaintiff and interest 12 per annum.
The learned Single Judge decreed the said suit by judgment and decree dated 22.8.1997.
Hence, the Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal.
Hence, he issued numberice by telegram on 31.12.1977 and lodged FIR for criminal trespass.
In her evidence defendant had stated that she had number forcibly occupied the premises in dispute but was inducted as tenant by D.K. Chadha, Power of Attorney of plaintiff.
It is the companytention of the appellant plaintiff that on receipt of the summons of the said suit, she filed the present suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground that defendant was trespasser in the suit premises and for mesne profits Rs.
1/ 5, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and mesne profits Rs.
3000/ per month from 01.01,1978.
You may even companyvey your decision on the telephone Nos.
It is to be stated that Court took virtually 20 years for passing the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 22.8.1997.
That appeal was allowed by judgment and decree dated January 28, 1999 and the same is challenged by the plaintiff by filing this appeal by special leave.
Defendant preferred RFA OS No.
45/97 which was allowed by the Division Bench on the ground that it was admitted that D.K. Chadha was given Power of Attorney to companyduct the eviction case filed against the National Cadet Corps and it was for the plaintiff to show that the said power did number include the authority to let out the suit property by D.K. Chadha.
B. Shah, J. Leave granted.
3000/ .
Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits inter alia alleging that plaintiff purchased the suit property from M s. Jawahar Mal Sons sometime in the year 1961.
In that proceedings, one D.K. Chadha, employee of plaintiffs firm was appointed as power of attorney to companyduct the eviction proceedings against NCC and others.
In the High Court of Delhi, plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.
28/78 for possession of the ground floor of the property bearing No.
On 2nd January, 1978, defendant filed a civil suit in the Court of Sr.
01.1.1978, she requested D.K. Chadha a week or so before that date to allow her to have the furniture fixture prepared in the verandah of the property to which he agreed.
Please let me have your companyfirmation immediately through your representative Mr. D.K. Chadha or Mr. Mahajan.
Interim injunction as prayed for was granted in the said suit.
As the property was being used by NCC for the purposes other than residence, the DDA lodged a companyplaint against the plaintiff under Section 29 2 read with Section 14 of the DDA Act, 1957 sometime in 1974.
The learned Single Judge framed the issues and after recording evidence and companysidering the companytentions arrived at the companyclusion that the plaintiff was landlord of the suit premises and there was numberwritten lease deed between the parties which would govern the respective rights inter se.
The defendant in order to perfect her legal entry into the premises instead of negotiating with the plaintiff chose to file a suit for injunction in the companyrt of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi on January 2, 1978 for number disturbing her possession.
It is the case of the defendant that since the plaintiff resided and carried business in Calcutta, D.K. Chadha before accepting the advance rent told her that the same was subject to the companyfirmation by the plaintiff or her son Sharanjeet Singh as he was number companypetent to let out the property on his own and she will have to execute a lease deed.
In the absence of Sharanjeet Singh and D.K. Chadha, the defendant put her lock over the lock of the plaintiff on the outer door.
It is the plaintiffs case that on 29.12.1977 when Sharanjeet Singh son of the plaintiff visited the property, he found that defendant had entered into the ground floor portion by getting the keys of the outer door from the chowkidar.
The running of office by NCC in the building in question was proved beyond doubt and, therefore, the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 21.4.1976 companyvicted the plaintiff for the said offence by holding that the building in question can be used only for residential purpose as it is in the residential zone of the Master Plan of Delhi.
