Delhi High Court
Anita Sethi & Ors. vs Subhash Sethi & Ors. on 5 March, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 2.3.2009
Date of Order: 5th March, 2009
IA No. 9717/2008 in CS(OS) No. 1768/2005
% 05.03.2009
Anita Sethi & Ors. ... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. A.S.Mathur, Advocate
Versus
Subhash Sethi & Ors. ... Defendants
Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam &
Mr. Samrat Nigam, Advocates for Defendant No.2
Mr. Shiv Khurana, Advocate for D-7
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
By this application filed under 151 CPC applicant/Defendant
No.2(k) Smt. Kiran Kapur had sought leave of the Court to let out property -
Ground Floor No. B-328, New Friends Colony along with car parking in the
driveway, garage with open verandah and WC above the garage and one room
in the rear courtyard. It is submitted by the applicant that she was the absolute
owner of the property and the property has been wrongly shown as subject
matter of the suit. She stated that property initially belonged to Smt. Om Kumari
Sethi wife of late Shri Tara Chand Sethi. Shri Tara Chand Sethi and three sons
had pre deceased Smt. Om Kumari Sethi so she succeeded to the estate of her
husband and all her sons. Smt. Om Kumari Sethi died on 19.10.2007 leaving
behind a Will dated 3.10.2007 bequeathing all her movable and immovable
properties in favour of her daughter Smt. Kiran Kapur, the applicant herein. Smt.
Kiran Kapur claimed that she was the sole owner of this property and the
property was lying vacant, she should be permitted to let it out and collect rent
during pendency of the suit. The application is opposed by the other parties on
the ground that this property was very much subject matter of the suit and the
'Will' produced by Smt. Kiran Kapur has already been challenged.
2. A perusal of proceedings dated 14.5.2007 of this Court would show
that defendant no. 2 (original defendant) was considered by this Court as owner
of this property. This Court had passed an order that the builder (defendant
No.7), who had an agreement with defendant no.2, shall handover the
possession of basement and ground floor to defendant no.2 within 15 days (from
the date of order) and shall also obtain completion certificate in respect of the
building and in case there was any compoundable deviation, compounding fee
shall be deposited by the builder.
3. In view of this order, it is apparent that this Court was fully aware of
the status of the property and that is why the possession of the property was
directed to be handed over to defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 left behind Will in
favour of the applicant, who has been impleaded as the LR of defendant no.2 in
the suit. I consider that there is no reason why the applicant/defendant no.2 (k)
should not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the property which apparently belongs
to her. She is therefore given liberty to let out the portion of the property
mentioned in the application. She shall however, file the agreement entered into
with the tenant in the Court. She shall not create a perpetual tenancy so as to
indirectly sell the property. She shall maintain a proper account of the rent
received, and security amount received, if any. The applicant shall put the
security amount in a bank as fixed deposit so as to earn interest. With these
directions, the application is disposed of.
CS(OS) No. 1768/2005
List on the date fixed.
March 05, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
