Amar Nath And Sons (Huf) And ... vs Sheetal Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 1705 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          CS(OS) No.1449/2007

%                      Date of Decision: 27.04.2009

Amar Nath and sons (HUF) and another                  .... Plaintiffs
                    Through Mr.Kamal Mehta, Advocate.

                                Versus

Sheetal Singh                                       .... Defendant
                      Through Mr.A.K.Babbar & Mr.Surinder Kumar,
                              Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be             YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in            NO
       the Digest?


       Learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press the relief for

mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the defendant to handover

the vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as

and when he leaves the country. In any case the relief of mandatory

injunction shall also be barred under Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control

Act.

       As far as the relief of permanent injunction seeking a restraint

against the defendant from transferring the possession of any part of

the suit property or creating third party interest in respect of suit

property in any manner whatsoever in favour of any person other than

the plaintiff, learned counsel for the defendant contends that a


CS(OS) No.1449/2007                                   Page 1 of 2
 statement was given, on instructions of the defendant that the

defendant shall not transfer or create third party interest in respect of

suit property till the disposal of the present suit on the basis of which

IA.No.9126/2007 was disposed of directing the defendant not to

transfer or create third party interest in respect of suit property during

the pendency of the present suit.

       Learned counsel for the defendant, on instructions, further

submits that the defendant shall not handover the possession of the

premises unless there is a decree for recovery of possession of the

tenanted premises.

       On the basis of the statement of learned counsel for the

defendant, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the defendants are

directed not to transfer the possession of the property or to create third

party interest in the tenanted premises bearing shop No.7730, Ram

Nagar, New Delhi under the tenancy of the defendant and handover the

possession only pursuant to a decree for recovery of possession passed

by a competent court.

       The suit is decreed in terms thereof and parties are left to bear

their own costs.

       All the pending applications are also disposed of.




APRIL 27, 2009                                ANIL KUMAR, J.

"MK"