Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
V.KAMESWAR RAO
Parsvnath Developers Limited – Appellant
Versus
Vikram Khosla – Respondent
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff, Parsvnath Developers Ltd. which is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, against the sole defendant, Vikram Khosla for recovery of monies and possession, with the following prayers:
"(a) Pass a decree of directing the defendant, their agents, heirs, representatives and successors to vacate the suit premises i.e the portion of the Parsvnath Metro Mall, admeasuring approximately 10,200 Sq.ft Super Area (Covered area being 8,500 sq. ft. i.e. efficiency of approximately 83.3%) comprising of 10 (ten) Shops/Outlets and 3 (three) kiosks on the First Floor situated at Parsvnath Mall, Games Village Metro Station on Indraprastha- New Ashok Nagar Corridor, New Delhi, and to handover the vacant possession of the same to the Plaintiff;
(b) Pass a Decree of Recovery in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, their agents, heirs, representatives and successors, for an amount of Rs. 2,42,47,498/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) along with interest @24% p.a. pendent-lite and future till realisation, payable by the Defendant to t
In ex-parte proceedings, unchallenged statements in the plaint are deemed correct, allowing the court to grant decrees for recovery of possession and dues.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the defendant to hand over possession and pay outstanding dues due to default in payment as per the sub-license agreement.
Judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 should not be passed without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded in the plaint, and disputed questions of fact warrant a trial rather than a summary j....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation of premises by a tenant, and the court's authority to decree recovery of suc....
The burden of proof regarding tenancy lies with the party asserting existence of that legal relationship, as per the Indian Evidence Act.
A lawful tenant retains the right to recover possession from unauthorized occupants, and prior authority to occupy does not confer rights against the landlord.
Defendants' unauthorized occupation of property post-termination of license leads to entitlement of the plaintiff for recovery of possession and constitutes grounds for inquiry into mesne profits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right to recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the property and the appointment of a Special Referee to ascertain the mesne profit.
The court affirmed that a licensee cannot claim protected tenancy without proving exclusive possession as of 1 February 1973 under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
