S.RAVINDRA BHAT, DEEPA SHARMA
SURABHI GEHLOT – Appellant
Versus
SWARN KANTA PUNJ – Respondent
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
1. This common judgment will dispose of two connected appeals, i.e FAO No. 367/2013, (where the defendant complains that the application for rejection of the respondent’s plaint in the suit - I.A. No. 5932/2013 in CS (OS) 3559/2012- was wrongly dismissed) and FAO(OS) 420/2013, (where the ad-interim injunction claimed in I.A. No. 1035/2013 in the said suit was granted). The application for rejection of plaint was dismissed by order dated 08.07.2013 and the temporary injunction was granted by an order dated 06.08.2013.
2. The factual matrix within which the present dispute arises is as follows. Since 1948, one Shri Chaman Lal, and his brother, Shri Swaran Lal’s family had been living at 12, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (hereafter the demised premises) as tenants. After the latter’s death, his family members continued in possession of the premises and his widow, the respondent in the present matter has been paying rent to the landlord. Subsequently even after Shri Chaman Lal moved away, and his children were married, the plaintiff continued to reside in the demised premises. In December 2012, the premises were sold by the erstwhile owners to the appellan
Chapsibai Dhanjibai v. Purushottam AIR 1971 SC 1878.
Re Raptakos Brett and Co. v. Ganesh Property AIR 1998 SC 3085.
Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510.
Omprakash Tulsiram and Ors v. H.J. Leach and Co. 1988 (4) BomCR 97.
Shri Akesh Kumar Jain v. Shri Harmeet Singh Bakshi 2001(59) DRJ 734.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.