Shri Jyoti Kumar Ahuja And Ors. vs Narender Singh Grewal And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1152 Del

ORDER

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit jointly against the defendants to restrain them from dispossessing the plaintiffs or interfering in their peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit premises.

2. It is alleged that the plaintiffs are lawful occupants of the separate and identifiable portions of the premises, detailed in the petition and site plan. The premises were lease to them by Tej Prakash Singh Grewal, who had died. Defendants No.1 to 4 are the legal representatives of said Tej Prakash Singh Grewal. Defendant No.5 claims to be the owner of the suit premises.

3. It has been alleged that plaintiff No.1 is running the business and was put in possession in 1978. Plaintiff No.2 was put in possession in 1978. So was plaintiff no.3 given possession of a separate portion in the same year. Plaintiff No.4 claims that he has been put in possession of his portion in 1974. Plaintiff No.5 was put in possession in 1986 while plaintiff No.6 in 1978. It is further alleged that plaintiff No.7 was given the portion of suit premises in 1970, plaintiff No.8 in 1992, plaintiff No.9 in 1976 and plaintiff No.10 in 1986. In similar manner, plaintiff No.11 claims his possession over his portion since 1986, plaintiff no. 12 since 1985-86 and also plaintiff No.13 for a separate portion in the same year. Plaintiff No.14 claims his possession since 1976 while plaintiff No.15 also claims possession from the same year. Plaintiff No.16 states that he is in possession of his portion since 1978.

4. All the plaintiffs allege that they are in their settled possession while defendants are threatening to dispossess them. Hence the present suit for injunction.

5. On 4.8.1998, this Court had proceeded ex parte against the defendants Affidavits were filed and documents were exhibited in support of the ex parte evidence.

6. Perusal of the affidavits clearly shows that some of the plaintiffs have shown their settled possession while others have filed their respective affidavits. Plaintiffs No.2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 have filed their respective documents to show their settled possession. So far as other plaintiffs are concerned, they also, from the affidavits on record, must be held to be in possession of the property, for past many years. There is no ground to disbelieve their evidence or reject the same.

7. Once a person is in settled possession, he can only be dispossessed except in due course of law. It is unnecessary for this Court to go into the controversy if they are tenants or not but the settled possession by itself would give them the right to claim that their possession, as such, can be protected. Therefore, the defendants indeed can not be dispossess them form the suit premises except in due process of law.

8. Accordingly the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed. Defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit premises except in due process of law.