Delhi High Court
Deepak Kumar vs Raman Kumar & Ors on 28 May, 2020
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.05.2020
+ CONT.CAS(C) 259/2020
DEEPAK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
RAMAN KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijat Bal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chaitanya
Gosain, Advocate for respondent No.1
SHO, Raman Kumar and ASI Ashish, PS Burari.
M.R. Shamshad, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 with
Ms. Anju Tyagi - Respondent No.3 in person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.11370/2020 (exemption from filing certified copies)
CM APPL.11371/2020 (exemption from filing duly attested
affidavit)
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Petitioner
shall file the duly attested affidavits within one week of the lock-down
being lifted.
CONT.CAS(C) 259/2020
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner
contending that the respondents have failed to comply with the
directions given by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated
20.05.2020 in W.P.(Crl.) 790/2020.
3. It is contended that the Division Bench had directed that
respondent No.2 - Mr. Ashok Tyagi shall forthwith remove himself
from the subject property, i.e., Property No.46/22, Kaushik Enclave,
New Delhi.
4. It is contended that though Mr. Ashok Tyagi has removed
himself but his wife and daughter continue to remain in the property.
5. It is further contended that the petitioner has been ousted from
the use and enjoyment of the entire property and has been shifted to
the Barsati Floor which does not have the basic amenities of a kitchen,
toilet or even any cooling facilities.
6. Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2
and 3, under instructions, submits that the family of Mr. Ashok Tyagi
shall vacate the property by tomorrow evening, i.e., by 5 pm on
29.05.2020.
7. Ms. Anju Tyagi - respondent No.3, who has also joined the
proceedings through video conferencing, submits that she has never
objected to Mrs. Sudesh Tyagi coming and occupying any portion of
the first floor. She submits that she has even requested Mrs. Sudesh
Tyagi to reside on the first floor and even share the kitchen with her
but Mrs. Sudesh Tyagi did not do so. She further submits that she has
no objection in case Mrs. Sudesh Tyagi were to shift to one of the
rooms of the first floor and also use the kitchen on the first floor.
8. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a
direction to the family of Mr. Ashok Tyagi to vacate the property
No.46/22, Kaushik Enclave, New Delhi by 5 pm on 29.05.2020.
Mrs. Sudesh Tyagi is permitted to come and reside in one of the
rooms on the first floor.
9. It is noticed that the Division Bench in its order dated
20.05.2020 has permitted Ms. Anju Tyagi to also reside in the said
property.
10. The Division Bench has noticed that since the lockdown is
continuing, there was no reason to direct Mrs. Anju Tyagi to remove
herself from the premises and she was free to continue staying in the
premises. The Division Bench has also clarified that the order dated
20.05.2020 is not to be construed as vesting any lawful right in favour
of Mrs. Sudesh Tyagi or the legal heirs of late Sh. Ram Kishore Tyagi
in respect of premises No.46/22, Kaushik Enclave. The aspect of
lawful possession and title has been left open for being decided in
appropriate proceedings that may be initiated by the parties.
11. Since there is an apprehension of breach of peace expressed by
learned counsel appearing for the parties, the SHO, Police Station,
Burari is directed to share the mobile numbers of the beat constable as
also of an officer of the police station who can be contacted in case
there is any difficulty.
12. It is further directed that Mr. Ashok Tyagi and his family, Ms.
Neelam Tyagi, Mr. Deepak Kumar and his family and Ms. Neha
Garg, shall not cause any interference or breach of peace or threaten
the opposite side in any manner.
13. Respondent No. 1 SHO is directed that if there is any breach of
peace or threat extended by anyone, appropriate action be taken in
accordance with law.
14. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.
15. List for reporting compliance on 03.06.2020.
16. Copy of the judgment be uploaded on the High Court website
and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
MAY 28, 2020 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
