C. L. Chandhry, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has preferred this suit for recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation on the basis of the the following allegations as disclosed in the plaint.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is an allottee of leasehold rights of shed No. B-70/. 3. New Lawrance Road Industrial Complex Delhi under Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation, for short DSIDC. The area of the shed is 80 x 20 shown as ABHC in the site plan attached to the plaint. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of which defendants 2 to 5 are the partners. The defendants approached the plaintiff and represented that they were constrained to vacate the premises at Tri Nagar, where the business of manufacturing of plastic goods was being carried on but no suitable alternative site was available immediately to them and requested the plaintiff to accommodate them for a short period by way of temporary arrangement. The defendants promised to vacate the shed within a couple of months. Believing the assertion and assurances of the defendants, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to occupy portion of the shed measuring 34 x 20 towards the north marked as CDHG in the plan attached to the plaint as temporary licencees with clear understanding that they would remove their belongings in a couple of moths. The plaintiff had not to charge anything on account of use and occupation in view of the temporary arrangement and relationship between the parties. It is asserted that the defendants failed to fulfil their obligation and promise and did not vacate the portion of the shed and it transpired that defendants 2 and 3 started manipulating with DSIDC to the get the allotment of the shed in their favour. In early 1985, the defendants also wanted to grab the other portion of the shed which was in possession of the plaintiff but they were restrained by the Court in a suit filed by the plaintiff. it is further alleged that defendant No. 1 also filed a civil suit, being suit No.-13/84, in this Court for a declaration to the effect that the defendants had beenput into possession of the entire shed on 10. 11. 1979 and thus the firm was a lawful occupant in respect of the entire shed. In that suit an injunction was also sought restraining lhe plaintiff from dispossessing the defendants. the licence granted to the defendants in respect of the portion measuring 34 x 20 was terminated and the defendants were called upon to move out in early 1980, but despite that the portion occupied by them has not been vacated. In these premises the present suit for recovery of possession as well as tor damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 1500. 00 for a period of three years has been filed.

( 3 ) DEFANDANT No. 4, Smt. Savitri Devi, who was a partner in the firm defendant No. I to the extent of 25%, has admitted in her written statement that the defendant had obtained a portion of the shed and the machinery from the tenanted premises at Tri Nagar was shifted to the portion of the shed. The partnership business was continued for sometime but thereafter defendants No. 2 and 3 in collusion with the other partner i. e. defendant No. 5 have been trying to oust defendant No. 4 from the partnership, its assets and the fruits of the partnership. Defendant No. 4 had placed her lock on the premises and the factory was closed down. But defendants No. 2 and 3 illegally broke open the lock when defendant No. 4 was out of Delhi in early May, 1986.

( 4 ) THE suit is contested by defendant No. 2 who has filed a written statement as well as a counter-claim. The case set up by defendant No. 2 is that the plaintiff was allotted the shed in question by DSIDC and the plaintiff did the business of surgical cotton in the shed under licences from DSIDC and Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff informed defendant No. 2 that the plaintiff had suffered heavy losses and was not able to carry on the business in the shed. The plaintiff was not even in a position to pay the licence fee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document