Krishan Kumar Wadhwa v. Delhi Floorings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent and mandatory injunction pleading that he is a tenant in a portion ad-measuring 2858 sq. ft. along with open space in property No.71/5, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi as shown in Blue, Green and Orange colours in the site plan filed along with the plaint under the defendant No.1 and seeking to restrain the defendant No.1 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said tenancy premises forcibly and without due process of law. Mandatory injunction is also 2013:DHC:289 claimed against the defendant No.2 Commissioner of Police and defendant No.3 SHO, Police Station Moti Nagar, New Delhi to protect the possession of the plaintiff of the said premises.

2. The counsel for the plaintiff states that when this suit was pending before the Court of the Additional District Judge, an application was filed for impleading Mr. Ashok Kumar Sardana as the defendant No.4 on the ground that he was also obstructing the possession of the plaintiff of the aforesaid tenancy premises.

3. It is further informed that no formal order impleading the said Mr. Ashok Kumar Sardana has been issued till now, though notice was issued to him and he has been appearing through counsel.

4. The counsel for the defendant No.1 states that the defendant No.1 is willing to give an undertaking to this Court not to dispossess the plaintiff from the aforesaid premises save by due process of law. He states that instructions in this regard have been received from Mr. Bhaskar Mukherjee, Director of the defendant No.1 Company. The counsel for the proposed defendant Mr. Ashok Kumar Sardana states that M/s Saurabh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. of which the said Mr. Ashok Kumar Sardana is a Director, has purchased the entire property of which the suit premises are a part vide registered Sale Deed dated 31.12.2009 from the defendant No.1. The said Mr. Ashok Kumar Sardana on behalf of M/s Saurabh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. also undertakes to this Court, not to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the said premises save by due process of law.

5. The counsels for the defendant No.1 as well as the proposed defendant No.4, who in view of the aforesaid is formally impleaded as a defendant to this suit, further state that though they do not admit the claim of the plaintiff of tenancy or any other right with respect to the premises but will take appropriate legal proceedings for recovering possession of the premises from the plaintiff.

6. The counsel for the plaintiff states that there is a dispute as to the management of the defendant No.1 Company and also disputes the sale of the property.

7. However the aforesaid questions are not to be adjudicated in this suit, merely for the relief of injunction. The plaintiff shall have liberty to, in accordance with law, raise the said disputes in an appropriate proceeding.

8. Once the defendants against whom the injunction is sought have given the undertaking, need is not felt to keep the suit pending.

9. Accordingly, the undertaking aforesaid of the defendants No.1 & 4 to this Court are accepted and the said defendants are ordered to be bound thereby.

10. In view of the aforesaid undertakings, need is not felt for the relief of mandatory injunction claimed against the Police Authorities impleaded as defendants No.2 & 3.

11. Besides accepting the undertakings aforesaid of the defendants No.1&4, the suit of the plaintiff is also decreed in terms of prayer ‘a)’ of the plaint against the defendants No.1 and 4. Decree Sheet be prepared. The defendants No.1 and 4 having conceded to the claim, no costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JANUARY 17, 2012 ‘gsr’