Delhi High Court
Delhi Catholic Archidiocese vs Ekta John on 14 August, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order delivered on: August 14, 2014
+ CS (OS) No. 526 OF 2014
DELHI CATHOLIC ARCHIDIOCESE ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Ram K. Watel, Adv
versus
EKTA JOHN ..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
1. This is a suit for ejectment and recovery of damages and
mesne profits together with interest filed by the plaintiff against the
defendant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is stated to be a
charitable society who is owner of the suit property i.e. Quarter No. 4,
St. Mary Church Compound, S.P. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi - 110006.
It is stated that in the year 1980, Mrs. Agnes Peter, who was the
mother-in-law of the defendant, had approached the plaintiff with the
request that she being a poor lady, was in great hardship and had no
place to stay and sought help from the plaintiff by allowing her to stay
in one of the out houses which is in the vicinity of St. Mary Church,
S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi - 110006, which is also owned by the
plaintiff.
3. It is stated that the plaintiff acceded to her request and allowed
her to stay temporarily as a licensee in one of the out houses i.e. the
suit property. it is averred that Mrs. Agnes Peter had assured the
plaintiff that as and when the plaintiff needed the suit property, she
would vacate the same.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff time and again
requested Mrs. Agnes Peter to vacate the suit property but she
avoided doing so on one pretext or the other. plaintiff vide letter dated
22nd July, 2009 requested Mrs. Agnes Peter to vacate the suit
property. However, she did not vacate and requested plaintiff to let
her stay till she is alive as she being an old lady had no other place to
go. Plaintiff agreed to the same.
5. Mrs. Agnes Peter expired on 5th February, 2011 and thereafter
the plaintiff found out that Mr. John Peter, son of Mrs. Agnes Peter
and husband of the defendant has been occupying the suit property
without any permission or authorization of the plaintiff. plaintiff
requested him to vacate the suit property as the same was required
for extension of the church activities but despite various requests he
did not vacate the same.
6. Plaintiff served a legal notice dated 20th January, 2012 to Mr.
John Peter to vacate the suit property and handover the possession
to the plaintiff within 4 weeks failing which the occupation would
amount to be that of a trespasser. The said notice was not replied to.
7. Mr. John Peter, husband of the defendant expired on 20th May,
2013 and after his death, defendant is continuing to occupy the suit
property without any permission/authorization of the plaintiff.
8. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the defendant is in illegal
possession of the suit property; she is liable to be ejected from the
suit property and is liable to pay damages for use and occupation of
the suit property at Rs.10,000/- per month from 1st March, 2012 till
the date of filing of the suit. She is further liable to pay interest at 18%
per annum on the amount claimed by way of damages and mesne
profits from the date these became due till payment.
9. The suit was listed before Court on 21st February, 2014 when
summons were issued to the defendant in the suit. the defendant was
served through ordinary process on 20th March, 2014 and through
courier on 3rd April, 2014. Despite of service no one appeared on
behalf of the defendant nor the written statement was filed.
10. When the matter came up before Court on 14th August, 2014,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff does not press
the mesne profits and damages.
11. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff and under the facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled
a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property bearing
Quarter No. 4, St. Mary Church Compound, S.P. Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi - 110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan filed along with
the plaint. The suit is accordingly decreed to this effect in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled for
costs of proceedings.
12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has made an oral prayer for
refund of Court Fees under Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Since the matter is uncontested, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of
half of the Court Fee in terms of Section 16A of the Court-Fees Act,
1870. The Registry is to issue refund voucher in respect of half the
amount of the Court fee affixed on the plaint, in the name of Collector
of Stamps and hand over the same to plaintiff through counsel within
six weeks from today.
13. The decree be drawn accordingly. The suit is disposed of.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
AUGUST 14, 2014
