MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL)

1. Despite pass over none is present on behalf of the respondent. Even on the last date despite pass over none was present on the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10th February, 2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller whereby the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 13th November, 2013 was reversed. Learned Civil Judge vide order dated 13th November, 2013 had allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant in Suit No.923/2013 thereby rejecting the plaint.

3. A brief background of facts is that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendants before learned Civil Judge seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner and his mother from dispossessing the respondent/plaintiff from the suit property bearing No. E-56 (Garrage) Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi without due process of law. In the plaint it was the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the plaintiff was an old lady, working as domestic servant for the last 8 years with defendant No.1 being the mother of petitioner herein who was impleaded as defendant No.2. The plaintiff/respondent was allotted a servant quarter bearing No.E-56 (Garrage) Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi by defendant No.1 during the course of her employment for residence of the plaintiff/respondent and her family members and since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the said quarter. The plaintiff had got installed a telephone connected in the name of her husband in the suit premises. However, electricity connection was got installed in the suit premises in the name of husband of defendantNo.1at her own cost. When the plaintiff was employed with defendant No.1 as domestic servant the husband of defendant No.1 was bedridden due to old age ailments. The plaintiff was looking after him and doing other household work. Defendant No.1 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month besides allotting the suit premises for residential purposes and had assured that when the plaintiff would be in need of money, the entire salary/wages will be given. In the month of February, 2007 the plaintiff demanded her earned wages/salary for the entire period from the defendants but the defendants instead of paying any heed to the requests and demands of plaintiff extended threat to vacate the suit premises immediately otherwise they would dispossess her forcibly and illegally. It is further stated that on 10th March, 2007 the defendants came at the suit premises and threatened the plaintiff and her family members to vacate the suit premises. With this cause of action the suit was filed seeking injunction as noted above. It may be noted that there was no prayer for recovery of the salary in the plaint.

4. An application was filed by the petitioner/defendant no.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC pleading that no cause of action arose in the suit and the suit was not maintainable. On hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 13th November, 2013 allowed the application relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs.(2012) 5 SCC 370. It was held that the plaintiff had no right in the suit premises as according to her own averment she was allotted the suit premises on the ground that she was the servant of the defendants. Thus directions were issued to the plaintiff to hand over possession of the suit premises within one month from the date of the order and the plaint was rejected. Against the order dated 13th November, 2013 passed by the Civil Judge, the respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge who vide order dated 10th February, 2014 set aside the judgment of the learned Civil Judge and held that the Civ