Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Santosh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Col. Satsangi’s Kiran Memorial Aipeccs Educational Complex & Anr. - Respondents
RSA 148 of 2018
Decided On : 12-10-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Avniash Kumar Lakhanpal
The legal provisions of the Indian Easements Act were interpreted to determine the validity of the defendant's claim of permanent license.
Headnote:
CPC - Appeal against mandatory injunction for possession of school property - Sections 100, 96, Order XII Rule 6 - The court discussed the admission made by the defendant, the legal provisions of the Indian Easements Act, and the permission for construction. The court found that the defendant's plea of permanent license was untenable and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal arose from a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over possession of a room on the school property. The defendant contested the suit, claiming permanent license and non-joinder of the Central Government as the landowner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's admission and the legal provisions did not support the claim of permanent license. The court dismissed the appeal, burdening the defendant with costs.
Issues: Admission of the defendant, claim of permanent license, non-joinder of Central Government, and permission for construction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's admission and the legal provisions did not support the claim of permanent license. The court also found that the defendant's plea of non-joinder of Central Government and permission for construction were untenable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and burdened the defendant with costs of Rs.1 lac.
CM Nos. 42968/2018 & 42970/2018 (both for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of.
RSA 148/2018 & CM No.42969/2018 (for stay)
3. This Regular Second Appeal (RSA) under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 16th August, 2018 in RCA SCJ No.8/17 (CNR No. DLST03-000251-2017) of the Court of Senior Civil Judge (South)] of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree [dated 7th December, 2016 in CS No. 83061/2016 of the Court of Civil Judge-02 (South)] allowing on admissions the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs for mandatory injunction directing and commanding the appellant/defendant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of one room on the ground floor of the property of the respondents/plaintiffs being a public school in the name of Col. Satsangi’s Kiran Memorial Public School established by the respondent/plaintiff no.2 All India Personality Enhancement and Cultural Centre for Scholars Society and the hostel accommodation wherein was being managed by the respondent/plaintiff no.1 Col. Satsangi’s Kiran Memorial AIPECCS Educational Complex.
4. The counsel for the appellant/defendant has been heard and the copies of the trial court record annexed to the memorandum of appeal perused.
5. The respondents/plaintiffs instituted the suit, from which this Second Appeal arises, pleading that (i) the respondent no.2/plaintiff is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and has established Col. Satsangi’s Kiran Memorial Public School; (ii) the said school has a complex in the name of Col. Satsangi’s Kiran Memorial AIPECCS Educational Complex which inter alia runs and manages the hostel for the students and also a residential complex for staff and teachers, run by the respondent no.2/plaintiff Society; (iii) the appellant/defendant had been retained by the respondent no.1/plaintiff for washing clothes of the students on piece rate basis fixed and decided mutually between the appellant/defendant and the respondent no.1/plaintiff; (iv) the role of the appellant/defendant was confined only to washing the clothes of the students and to get payment from the respondent no.1/plaintiff on piece rate basis; (v) for the said purposes, the appellant/defendant was provided two rooms for his residence-cum-washing in the property aforesaid of the respondents/plaintiffs; (vi) the license granted by the respondents/plaintiffs to the appellant/defendant in this regard was withdrawn in June, 2013 but the appellant/defendant did not leave the two rooms in which he was allowed to carry out his duties; (vii) the respondents/plaintiffs could take back possession of only one room on 11th January, 2014 but the appellant/defendant resisted vacating the other room; (viii) the appellant/defendant instituted a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents/plaintiffs from taking possession of the other room but the said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 15th July, 2015; (ix) in the aforesaid judgment, it was held that the status of the appellant/defendant was merely that of a licensee and which licence had been terminated on 11th July, 2013; (x) the application of the appellant/defendant for interim stay in the aforesaid suit was also dismissed and the appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant there against also dismissed; and, (xi) the appellant/defendant, in the pleadings in the suit filed by him, also admitted being a licensee under the respondents/ plaintiffs. Hence, the relief’s of mandatory injunction, directing the appellant/defendant to hand over possession of the remaining one room and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from parting with possession of the said room to any other person were claimed in the suit.
6. The appellant/defendant contested the suit aforesaid by filing a written statement inter ali
