Angoori Devi (Deceased) Through L.Rs. vs Sarswati Devi

Indermeet Kaur, J.—Order impugned is the order dated 8.01.2010 vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff (petitioner Angoori Devi) u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act had been dismissed. This order is the subject matter of the present petition.

The present suit had been filed u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The averments made in the plaint have been perused. It was contended that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises i.e. the property bearing no. A-17, Jhilmil Colony Shahdara, Delhi comprising of ground floor and the first floor. The petitioner filed eviction petition bearing 8/2001 against her tenant Rajender Kumar which had been decreed in her favour on 09.4.2003. This eviction petition had been filed u/s 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Execution petition had been preferred. A bailiff had been deputed. The contention in the plaint is that the bailiff had given vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the petitioner and he had also submitted his report dated 22.4.2004. Police aid had also been granted; the bailiff had visited the suit property on 20.12.2004 to execute the warrants of possession at 2.00 PM where the defendant was found present; since the defendant had refused to vacate the suit property the bailiff had taken forceful possession from her and handed it over to the plaintiff; further contention being that the plaintiff along with his family remained in the premises till 10.00 PM on 20.12.2004 thereafter returned to her resident at Jawla Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi; on the following day at 6.00 AM the plaintiff came to the suit property; she found that the defendant along with her family members had trespassed into the suit premises by breaking the locks. Accordingly the present suit was filed seeking possession of the suit premises.

Written statement was filed disputing these contentions; further contention was that eviction decree had been obtained against one Rajender Kumar which was also by a fraud; Rajender Kumar was not a tenant and he was never in possession of the suit premises; contention was that Sarswati Devi was always in possession of the suit property right from 1997. This decree had been obtained by the plaintiff in collusion with said Rajender Kumar. It had not been disputed that on 20.12.2004 the bailiff had come with the police at the spot; he was informed that there was no such person by the name of Rajender Kumar living in the suit premises; the bailiff returned without executing the warrants of possession and as such the question of the forcible eviction of the defendant Sarswati Devi from the suit premises did not arise. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

The trial court had framed the following four issues:

i. Whether the plaintiff had been put in lawful possession of the suit property by the order of the court on 20.1.2004? OPP

ii. Whether the plaintiff had been dis-possessed from the suit property thereafter, as alleged? OPP

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession from the defendant? OPP

iv. Relief.

Oral land documentary evidence had been led. Vide the impugned judgment the suit of the plaintiff had been dismissed.

The impugned judgment on the basis of the evidence on record returned a finding that the petitioner had been put in possession of the suit premises by the bailiff and had decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff. The court was of the view that there was no evidence to the effect that the plaintiff has been dispossessed from the suit property and the plaintiff is not entitled to the possession. The impugned judgment, however, shows that there has been no discussion whatsoever on the evidence which had been adduced both oral and documentary before the trial court which comprises of four witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and one witness on behalf of the defendant. Court has not adverted either to the oral or the documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties. No finding has been returned whatsoever on issue 3. This is a fit case where the matter is required to be remanded. The suit is accordingly remanded back to the trial court who shall dispose of the matter on its merits after considering the oral and documentary evidence already adduced by the respective parties.

Since the suit property i.e. property A-17, Jhilmil Colony Shahdara, Delhi falls within the jurisdiction of East District. Parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts on 10.01.2012 who shall assign the case to the concerned court. This matter is an old matter; trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. With these directions the petition is disposed of. Trial court record be returned back.