( 51 ) ). Issue Nos. 10 and 12: It has already been held above that defendants are not tenants in the property and that Rs. 5,100. 00 per month was the licence fee agreed. It has already been recorded also that the plaintiff is only entitled to recover the licence fee at the above said rate for the period three years before filing the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover only Rs. 5100 x 12 x 36 = Rs. 1,83,600. 00. The issue is decided accordingly.

( 52 ) ). Issue No. 13: As regards the payment of interest keeping in view the nature of disputes raised when payment has not been made, the plaintiff must be held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of the filing on the principal amount held above. For this period if any amount has already been deposited by the defendants he will take adjustment and interest would be payable only on the balance amount.

( 53 ) ). For these reasons given above the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for possession of the property in question. It is also decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,83,600. 00with costs. The interest would be payable at the rate of 12% p. a. on the principal amount till final payment is made, from the filing of the suit. The defendant can take adjustment of any amount, if any, deposited for this period. The defendants are given three months' time to vacate the premises.

V. S. Aggarwal

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF, Mrs. Savitri Devi, has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 7,99,500. 00 besides possession of the premises No. A-51/1 Phase-I, Naraina Industrial Area (for short the premises in dispute) and for permanent and mandatory injunction.

( 2 ). The relevant facts alleged are that Gian Chand was the husband of the plaintiff. He was carrying on business of printing press at Premises No. 5397, Arya samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in the name and style of M/s. Kisoo Mal Gian chand. Gian Chand was also the owner in possession of the premises in dispute. He died on 13. 12. 1977 leaving behind his widow and an unmarried daughter Suman besides a son Girish. The entire property after the death of Gian Chand was mutated in the name of the plaintiff. He had left behind a Will dated 13. 12. 1977 in which he bequeathed his property in favour of the plaintiff as the absolute owner.

( 3 ). It is further alleged that Gian Chand deceased was a friend of the husband of Mrs. Asha Makkar. He had approached Gian Chand in August, 1977 for allowing him the joint use of part of the premises in dispute as a licensee. The monthly licence fee was settled at Rs. 5,100. 00. He had given a cheque dated 10/08/1977 in favour of M/s. Kisoo Mal Gian Chand. The permission was granted and defendant no. 1 (Fashion Linkers) became a licensee in part of the premises. Gian Chand had kept the hall and two rooms with him. The machinery of Gian Chand had been installed in the premises and the first floor remained in exclusive possession of Gian chand. Mrs. Asha Makkar was a partner of defendant No. 1 and continued to use the premises after the death of her husband. The husband of Mrs. Asha Makkar died in September, 1981 and Mrs. Asha Makkar died in 1983.

( 4 ). It is further alleged that after that the property had been vacated. Taking advantage of the death of Gian Chand, Mrs. Asha Makkar and her husband had tried to take possession of the remaining part of the premises and even misappropriated the machinery that was lying there. A complaint was lodged at police Station Naraina, New Delhi on 13. 2. 1980. Defendant No. 1 is also alleged to have filed a suit for injunction against the plaintiff and her daughter praying that defendant No. 1 was a tenant in the premises. The said suit was dismissed. Despite the fact that plaintiff s name was entered in the records of the Delhi Development authority and Gian Chand had left a Will, still another suit was filed which was a inter-pleader suit against the plaintiff raising certain disputes and alleging that defendant No. 1 was a tenant therein.

(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document