9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt wants to most illegally and dishonestly continue in possession of the suit premises although the defendant has no legal right to the same. Defendant being a legal person has endeavoured his best to create legal and factual defences as per the written statement, however surely law is that much substantive that a dishonest defendant should not be allowed to succeed on illegal grounds, and therefore, it is ordered that this application is allowed. Decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. - CS(OS) No. 433/2017 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2018 - MR. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J. For The Plaintiff : Mr. Rohit K. Aggarwal and Mr. Mitash Charan, Advocate. For The Defendant : Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate. Defendant in person. VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) I.A. No. 13267/2017 (U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC by the plaintiff) 1. This is an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession and damages. By this application plaintiff/applicant prays that the suit be decreed so far as the same concerns the relief for possession of the suit property. Though the prayer clause is widely worded of this application, the counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1958 and that the defendant thus has protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (iv) Suit is not properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction because plaintiff has deliberately over-valued the suit property to file the same in this Court. The correct valuation of the suit for the relief of possession as sought by the defendant has to be ₹ 78,75,000/-. (v) Defendant contents that since admittedly plaintiff has initiated proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the defendant, therefore the plaintiff cannot pursue two remedies, and therefore this suit for possession is liable to be dismissed. 4. It is in these circumstances of the existent pleadings, and the documents filed, that this Court has to consider the present application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. This Court also at this stage would like to note that the defendant is not a layman. The defendant is a law graduate and was appointed as a Law Assistant. Defendant is effectively a lawyer. If therefore this Court finds that a person who is well versed in law is using the process of law to abuse the process of law then this Court has to pass appropriate directions against the defendant at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of bindingness of the order passed by this Court on 3.1.1983 in CP No. 59/1982 confirming the Scheme Of Arrangement whereby the present plaintiff company took over the assets etc of M/s Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. 7.(i) Another contention of the defendant is that plaintiff is not the owner but the DDA is the owner of the suit property and this is stated in para 2 of the preliminary objections of the written statement and this para reads as under:- 2. Without prejudice to the above mentioned preliminary objection, it is submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 25.03.2010, a direction has been given to the owner companies to surrender 68% from the entire land, to the DDA. Assuming without admitting that the plaintiff had been the owner of the property/the land underneath, the ownership rights in respect of the same, in any event, vest with the DDA. It is therefore, the DDA who, in law, has to be treated as the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff, therefore, has no right, title and interest in respect of the suit property. The suit is therefore not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed summarily on this account as well. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendant being a tenant at ₹ 100/- per month is rejected on account of the undisputed document being the letter dated 1.5.2004 issued by the plaintiff company to the defendant. 9. So far as the termination of licence is concerned, the same was done by the plaintiff company in terms of its letter dated 23.12.2016 which is referred to in para 5 of the plaint and there is no dispute that the defendant has in fact received this letter dated 23.12.2016. The defendant only denies the contents of this letter as factually incorrect and illegal. Therefore, the defendant s licence in the suit premises also stand terminated in terms of the letter dated 23.12.2016 issued by the plaintiff company to the defendant. 10. Now for the sake of arguments, let us assume that the defendant was a tenant in the suit property. The issue is that whether the defendant who was a tenant in the suit property, whether his tenancy would stand terminated in view of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which categorically provides that when a tenant denies the ownership of a person from whom the tenancy is given then the tenancy of such a tenant comes to an end. This is categorically h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant being a legal person has endeavoured his best to create legal and factual defences as per the written statement, however surely law is that much substantive that a dishonest defendant should not be allowed to succeed on illegal grounds, and therefore, it is ordered that this application is allowed. Decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with respect to the suit property being Kothi No.2, Ground Floor (Right Side Portion), Birla Mills Officers Compound, Mandelia Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 and as shown in the site plan filed at Serial no.2 of the list of documents. (ii) Considering the dishonest and frivolous defences raised by the defendant, who is not a layman but a legal person, this application is allowed with costs of ₹ 2 lacs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (iii) Further, this Court also exercises its powers under Section 340 Cr.P.C and directs the Registrar General of this Court to file a criminal complaint against the defendant under Section 209 of the IPC for filing false defences i.e a false case. After drawing of the criminal complaint Registry will sent the criminal complaint to the competent court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
