Full Text
Translation output
RSA 311/2014 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 31st October, 2014
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 31st October, 2014
RSA 311/2014 and CM Nos.17732-33/2014
BACHAN LAL SAINI THR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Brij Bhushan Solanki, Mr. V.P. Singh and Mr. Anuj R.
Yadav, Advs.
BACHAN LAL SAINI THR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Brij Bhushan Solanki, Mr. V.P. Singh and Mr. Anuj R.
Yadav, Advs.
VERSUS
HARBANS SINGH ..... Respondent
Through : None.
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
CM No.17733/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
CM No.17733/2014 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
RSA 311/2014 and CM No.17732/2014 (stay)
The concurrent findings returned by both the courts below are that the respondent – plaintiff who is the landlord of premises bearing No.RZ-
1, Shankar Park, Baba Balaknath Mandir, West Sagarpur, New Delhi is entitled to recovery of possession of the suit premises along with arrears of rent, etc.
At the hearing of this appeal, it was urged by learned counsel for the appellant – defendant/tenant that during the pendency of the suit, the suit premises devolved upon a trust in the year, 2004 and the decree has been passed against the respondent - plaintiff who has no locus to obtain
2014:DHC:5636
The concurrent findings returned by both the courts below are that the respondent – plaintiff who is the landlord of premises bearing No.RZ-
1, Shankar Park, Baba Balaknath Mandir, West Sagarpur, New Delhi is entitled to recovery of possession of the suit premises along with arrears of rent, etc.
At the hearing of this appeal, it was urged by learned counsel for the appellant – defendant/tenant that during the pendency of the suit, the suit premises devolved upon a trust in the year, 2004 and the decree has been passed against the respondent - plaintiff who has no locus to obtain
2014:DHC:5636
RSA 311/2014 Page 2 the possession of the suit premises. Reliance is placed on the Apex Court decisions in Shankar Lal & Anr. v. Sakil Ahmed & Ors., (2001) 9 SCC
342 and Prabha Arora & Anr. v. Brij Mohini Anand & Ors., (2007) 10
SCC 53.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgments and the material on record, I find that when the respondent – plaintiff had filed the instant suit, he was the owner of the suit premises and during the pendency of the suit, the suit premises was entrusted to a trust vide Trust
Deed of 28th October, 2004 Annexure ‘P4’ while respondent – plaintiff remained one of the trustees so it cannot be said that the suit by respondent – plaintiff had abated. In Prabha Arora (supra), the suit was filed for personal requirement which had ceased upon creation of a trust whereas it is not so in the instant case. The ratio of the Apex Court decision in Shankar Lal (supra) will not apply to the instant case as respondent – plaintiff continues to be one of the trustees and after obtaining the possession of the suit premises, it has to be placed at the disposal of the Sidh Shri Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust located in the suit premises.
In light of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this court, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
Consequentially, this appeal and the application are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 31, 2014 aj 2014:DHC:5636
342 and Prabha Arora & Anr. v. Brij Mohini Anand & Ors., (2007) 10
SCC 53.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgments and the material on record, I find that when the respondent – plaintiff had filed the instant suit, he was the owner of the suit premises and during the pendency of the suit, the suit premises was entrusted to a trust vide Trust
Deed of 28th October, 2004 Annexure ‘P4’ while respondent – plaintiff remained one of the trustees so it cannot be said that the suit by respondent – plaintiff had abated. In Prabha Arora (supra), the suit was filed for personal requirement which had ceased upon creation of a trust whereas it is not so in the instant case. The ratio of the Apex Court decision in Shankar Lal (supra) will not apply to the instant case as respondent – plaintiff continues to be one of the trustees and after obtaining the possession of the suit premises, it has to be placed at the disposal of the Sidh Shri Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust located in the suit premises.
In light of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this court, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
Consequentially, this appeal and the application are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 31, 2014 aj 2014:DHC:5636