(July 13, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125212

2001-DLT-92-722 :: 2001-AD (Del)-5-527

S. P. SAIGAL Vs. SUNIL SAIGAL

J. D. Kapoor

( 1 ) CLUMSINESS in human relations knows no bounds. The plaintiff wants to evict his son and grand-son from the house which once was owned by his mother and gifted to him subsequently as he and his wife are allegedly being beaten and subjected to humiliation on daily basis.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has two more sons who are living in the some house. However defendants 1 and 2 have been harassing and abusing the plaintiff and his wife and on few occasions even physically as saulted them in order to pressurise them to leave the house of which the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner. So much so they were insulted, humiliated before the people of locality and intervention by relatives and friends has not helped the parties in resolving their disputes.

( 3 ) THE defendants started staking their claim in the suit property when they were asked to vacate the premises because of their highly unbecoming conduct culminating in physical beating to the plaintiff and his wife and when they started threatening to dispossess them by bringing in outsiders to terrorise them, the plaintiff was constrained to seek the relief of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants for peaceful enjoyment of the first floor of the suit property.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the defendants allege that the plaintiff is under the evil influence of his other two sons and is so ungrateful that inspite of having lived with them and availed their services and attention for a very long period that he has taken this unholy step.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS are resisting their dispossession on the ground that the property in question was purchased out of the funds of claim compensation in lieu of the ancestral properties left in Pakistan and as such is. the Joint Hindu Family undivided property.

( 6 ) THE facts pleaded by the plaintiff in support of his being the exclusive owner of the suit premises and the occupation of the ground floor by the defendants as licensee are in brief as under:

( 7 ) ONE Shri Raghunandan Lal was the original owner/allottee of the suit property bearing N. H-10/16, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. It was a lease hold property and the President of India through Land and Development Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Landdo) was the Lessor. The lease deed in favour of Shri raghunandan Lal was registered on 12/10/1964. Smt. Ved Kaur, the mother of the plaintiff and grand-mother of defendant No. 1 purchased the suit property from Shri Raghunandan Lal vide sale deed dated 25/10/1966 registered on 28/10/1966. Thereafter Smt. Ved Kaur gifted the said property to the plaintiff vide gift deed ated 6/11/1979 which was duly registered with the Sub- registrar on 7/11/1979 after obtaining necessary permission from the landdo. Interestingly defendant No. 1 signed the said gift deed as one of the witnesses.

( 8 ) THE suit property was a single storeyed residential house constructed on 100 sq. yards of land at the time when it was gifted to the plaintiff but subsequently in the year 1982-83 the plaintiff reconstructed the said property after getting the plans sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The funds for construction were partly arranged from his own savings and income and partly by raising loans from his office, In March, 1988 the plaintiff retired from his government service. He constructed another 1 storey on the second floor of the suit property in the year 1988-89 out of the funds received by him by way of retirement benefits. Two and half storeyed building was constructed keeping in view the future requirements of his family including the defendants.

( 9 ) IT is averred that all the three sons of the plaintiff are residing in the suit property and are in different portions of the suit property and none of them is entitled to abuse the licence given to them by the plaintiff. As regards electricity and wa