Full Text
Translation output
Review Petition No.489/2014 in RSA No.280/2014 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: November 12, 2014 Review Petition No. 489/2014 in RSA 280/2014
BASANTI DEVI ( DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS..... Appellants
Through: Mr. D.R. Bhatia, Advocate
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: November 12, 2014 Review Petition No. 489/2014 in RSA 280/2014
BASANTI DEVI ( DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS..... Appellants
Through: Mr. D.R. Bhatia, Advocate
VERSUS
SUKH RAM( DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS.....
Respondents
Through: Nemo.
Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
(ORAL)
C.M.No.1845/2014 (for exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Review Petition No. 489/2014 (under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC r/w
Sec. 151 CPC) & C.M.No.18454/2014 (under Order XLI Rule 5 r/w
Sec. 151 CPC) in RSA 280/2014 Review of order of 13th October, 2014, vide which appellants’ regular second appeal has been dismissed, is sought on the ground that respondent – Shiv Mandir Committee has no locus to terminate the license of appellants because Ishwar Dass in the plaint has averred that
2014:DHC:5926 Review Petition No.489/2014 in RSA No.280/2014 Page 2 subject property was handed over to respondent No.8- Committee for its management and supervision and this aspect goes to the root of the matter and has not been considered in the order of 13th October, 2014.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the order of 13th October, 2014 and the material on record, I find that in the plaint it has been averred by respondents/plaintiffs that the then owners of the subject property had joined hands with the President of Shiv Mandir Committee i.e respondent
No.8 and had handed over the management and supervision of the suit property to the aforesaid Committee and that husband of appellant was allowed to work in the temple located in the suit property as part time
Pujari and was allotted a quarter but due to his old age, his services were dispensed with during his life time and appellants/defendants were allowed to remain in the property as licensees under respondents- plaintiffs.
The aforesaid stand of respondents-plaintiffs is firmly established by the evidence on record and so, appellants cannot be heard to say that respondent- Shiv Mandir Committee had no locus to terminate the license of the appellant.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no substance in this review petition. Accordingly, review petition and applications are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 12, 2014 r 2014:DHC:5926
(ORAL)
C.M.No.1845/2014 (for exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Review Petition No. 489/2014 (under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC r/w
Sec. 151 CPC) & C.M.No.18454/2014 (under Order XLI Rule 5 r/w
Sec. 151 CPC) in RSA 280/2014 Review of order of 13th October, 2014, vide which appellants’ regular second appeal has been dismissed, is sought on the ground that respondent – Shiv Mandir Committee has no locus to terminate the license of appellants because Ishwar Dass in the plaint has averred that
2014:DHC:5926 Review Petition No.489/2014 in RSA No.280/2014 Page 2 subject property was handed over to respondent No.8- Committee for its management and supervision and this aspect goes to the root of the matter and has not been considered in the order of 13th October, 2014.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the order of 13th October, 2014 and the material on record, I find that in the plaint it has been averred by respondents/plaintiffs that the then owners of the subject property had joined hands with the President of Shiv Mandir Committee i.e respondent
No.8 and had handed over the management and supervision of the suit property to the aforesaid Committee and that husband of appellant was allowed to work in the temple located in the suit property as part time
Pujari and was allotted a quarter but due to his old age, his services were dispensed with during his life time and appellants/defendants were allowed to remain in the property as licensees under respondents- plaintiffs.
The aforesaid stand of respondents-plaintiffs is firmly established by the evidence on record and so, appellants cannot be heard to say that respondent- Shiv Mandir Committee had no locus to terminate the license of the appellant.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no substance in this review petition. Accordingly, review petition and applications are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 12, 2014 r 2014:DHC:5926
JUDGMENT