7 Dec 2021 10:12 AM GMT
A Delhi Court recently dismisses a 30-year-old civil suit filed seeking recovery of Rs. 13,000/- as damages for use and occupation of the premises, over which there was a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant. Pronouncing the Judgment on November 9, the Additional Senior Civil Judge Ajay Kumar Malik noted that the case was adjourned for lack of evidence and the plaintiff did not...
A Delhi Court recently dismisses a 30-year-old civil suit filed seeking recovery of Rs. 13,000/- as damages for use and occupation of the premises, over which there was a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant.
Pronouncing the Judgment on November 9, the Additional Senior Civil Judge Ajay Kumar Malik noted that the case was adjourned for lack of evidence and the plaintiff did not get any witnesses examined and therefore, the defendant also never had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
Essentially, as per the plaint filed by one Rattan Singh, Jayanti Parshad was the brother of the plaintiff and he was allowed by the plaintiff to reside in one room on the ground floor of the premises and accordingly, he and members of his family started residing in the said portion as Licensee.
After Parshad's death, the widow of Jayanti Parshad (who is the defendant in the case) was allowed by the plaintiff to reside in the said room where she is residing along with members of her family as Licensee.
As per the plaint, the defendant (the widow of Jayanti Parshad) is now trying to extend her possession and wants to encroach upon the Verandah and the roof of the premises and it was alleged that she is occupying the premises without any license from the plaintiff.
Further, averring that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damage for use and occupation from 1st March 1989 till the institution of the suit, the plaintiff assessed the damages for use and occupation of the premises at Rs.500/- per month.
And against this backdrop, Plaintiff moved the Court claiming that he is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.13,000/- as damages for use and occupation of the premises from 1st March, 1989 to 30th April 1991.
On the other hand, the widow of Jayanti Parshad (the defendant) submitted before the Court that in fact, it was the plaintiff, who was in unauthorized and illegal possession of the rooms belonging to her and her children.
Against this backdrop, she claimed that was the rightful owner of the property in question that she was not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff.
Having heard the arguments of both the parties, the Court, in its Judgment, stressed that even after availing many opportunities, the plaintiff had failed to get any of the witnesses examined in court in order to establish his case before the Court.
In fact, the Court also took into account that the plaintiff failed to bring forward any evidence to prove his case against the defendant.
It may be noted that the suit was filed in May 1991 and the issues, in this case, were framed in November 1992, however, till 2018, the matter remained adjourned for the plaintiff's evidence.
In the year 2018, though the evidence was filed by way of an affidavit by the plaintiff (represented by LRs), no witnesses were examined in the court and as a result of this, the defendant didn't get an opportunity to cross-examine them.
Lastly, in December 2019, the Court closed the right of the plaintiff to lead the evidence, and pronouncing the Judgment in November 2021, the Court dismissed the suit.
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment