RSA No.12/2007

Page 1 of 5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Judgment: 06.4.2011

+

RSA No.12/2007

CHHIDI RAM

………..Appellant

Through: Ms.Sunita Harish, Advocate.

Versus

RAMJAS FOUNDATION

……….Respondent.

Through: Mr.Sunil Mittal, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

1.Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to

see the judgment?

2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Yes

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1.

This appeal has impugned and judgment dated 25.9.2006

which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 01.12.1995

whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Ramjsas Foundation seeking

possession and recovery of damages qua the suit property i.e.

Jhuggi No.F-35, Sari Rohilla, anand Parbat, New Delhi ( hereinafter

referred to as „the suit property‟) had been decreed in faovur of the

plaintiff.

2.

The case of the plaintiff as is evident from the plaint is that

the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The defendant was a

licencee therein. License deed dated 31.12.1979 (Ex.,PW-1/6) had

been executed between the parties. Defendant is unauthorisedly

occupying the suit property. In para 5 of the plaint, it has been

2011:DHC:2098

RSA No.12/2007

Page 2 of 5

specifically averred that the licence of the defendant was

terminated on 07.3.1985 vide a written notice. In spite of the said

termination the defendant had failed to vacate the suit property.

3.

In the written statement, it was denied that the licence has

been terminated in terms of the aforenoted notice. It was stated

that up to date licence fee had been paid by the defendant; no

cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff.

4. On the pleadings of the parties seven issues were framed;

they read as follows:

1. Whether plaintiff has any locus standi to file the present suit against

the defendant? OPP

2. Whether the suit has been signed, verified and file on behalf of the

plaintiff by a duly authorized and competent person? OPP

3. Whether defendant was licencee of the plaintiff society in respect of

Jhuggi No.35, Sario Rohilla, Anand Parbat and his licence was terminated

vide notice 7.3.85, if so, to what effect? OPP

4. Whether the defendant has encroached upon the land in front of the

plaintiff‟s jhuggi without the consent of the pltff if so, to what effect? OPP

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim, damages from the defendant for

the illegal use and occupation of the encroached them as shown red in

the site plan attached, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP

6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as claimed? OPP

7. Relief.

5.

On the basis of oral and documentary evidence led by the

parties, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, which finding was

affirmed by the first appeallate court.

6.

This is a second appeal. It has been admitted and on

24.8.2009 the following substantial question of laws were framed:

1. Whether the licence of a licencee can be terminated without

giving him a notice in terms contained in the licence deed? If so

its effects?

2. Whether the licence of a licencee can be revoked on filing of a

suit without terminating the licence by way of a written notice?

2011:DHC:2098

RSA No.12/2007

Page 3 of 5

7.

On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that Clause

5 of the licence deed Ex. PW-1/6 states that after the termination of

the licence if the licencee fails to vacate the property, he will be

charged damages at the rate mentioned therein. Attention has

also been drawn to para 5 of the plaint where it has been averred

that the licence of the defendant had been terminated vide written

notice dated 7.3.198