Delhi High Court
Rakesh Bhardwaj vs Mahant Surender Nath on 22 February, 2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:27.02.2022
10:22:06
$~12 & 1(OS) to 10(OS)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd February, 2022
+ RFA 412/2021
RAKESH BHARDWAJ ..... Appellant
Through:
versus
MAHANT SURENDER NATH ..... Respondent
Through:
WITH
+ CS (OS) 525/2021
+ CS (OS) 526/2021
+ CS (OS) 535/2021
+ CS (OS) 579/2021
+ CS (OS) 539/2021
+ CS (OS) 540/2021
+ CS (OS) 542/2021
+ CS (OS) 543/2021
+ CS (OS) 554/2021
+ CS (OS) 648/2021
Appearances:-
Mr. Dheeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for Defendant No.1 in CS (OS) 525/2021.
(M:9312710547)
Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate for Defendant No.2 in CS (OS) 526/2021
Mr. Rohit Kishan Naagpal & Mr. Dipanshu Gaba, Advocates.
(M:9873730191)
Ms. Kiran, Advocate for Plaintiff in CS (OS) 648/2021. (M:9818893995)
Mr. R.R. Singh and Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, Advocates for Defendant.
(M:9910003491)
Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate.
Mr. Sarvesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for Plaintiff. (M:9350301058)
Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate for Respondent in CS (OS) 543/2021.
(M:8860456420)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:27.02.2022
10:22:06
2. These matters pertain to the Kalkaji Mandir, which this Court has
been hearing from time to time. These are part-heard matters.
3. Vide order dated 27th September 2021, the present matters pertaining
to the Kalkaji Mandir were transferred to this Court under Section 24 of The
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
RFA 412/2021
4. The present first appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 30th
July, 2018 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, South-East, Saket District Courts,
New Delhi (hereinafter, "Trial Court") in Civil Suit No.51666/2016 titled
Rakesh Bharadwaj & Anr. v. Surinder Nath @ Surinder Kumar. By the
impugned order, the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the
Appellants-Plaintiffs (hereinafter, "Plaintiffs") has been dismissed by the
Trial Court.
5. The reliefs sought in the plaint include a declaration to the effect that
the Respondent-Defendant (hereinafter "Defendant") is not the Mahant of
the Kalkaji Mandir and that he has no right, title, interest, claim or share to
perform the Pooja Sewa or Archana or to collect Tehbazaari. The said
reliefs have been extracted below:
"A. To pass a decree of declaration declaring the
defendant is not the MAHANT i.e. Gaddinashin
Mahant i.e. the Chief Priest of Kalkaji Mandir;
B. To pass a decree of declaration declaring the
defendant no.1 has no right, title or interest or claim
or share to perform Pooja Sewa Archana and to
collect offering, Tehbazaari etc. for as being Mahant
of Mandir Kalkaji, New Delhi;
C. To pass a decree of permanent injunction
thereby restraining the defendant from claiming
himself to be Mahant, Gaddi Nasheen, Avdhot Jogi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:27.02.2022
10:22:06
of the Mandir Kalkaji;
D. To pass a decree of permanent injunction
thereby restraining the defendant his servants,
representatives/Chela or any other person on his
behalf to carry out/perform any Pooja-Archana in
the Mandir Kalkaji or collect any offering etc.;
E. To award the entire cost of this suit on the
defendant in favour of the Plaintiff;
F. To pass a decree of permanent injunction
thereby restraining the defendant."
6. It is noticed that the impugned order dated 30th July, 2018 is a
handwritten order. Accordingly, let the typed copy of the impugned order be
placed on record by the next date by ld. Counsel for the Appellant.
7. Mr. Nandrajog, ld. Counsel for the Defendant, submits that the
present first appeal was listed before the ld. Additional District Judge,
initially. In view thereof, the parties may be deprived of one appellate
remedy if this Court adjudicates this matter. This Court shall consider the
same after the typed copy of the impugned order is placed on record.
8. List on 27th April, 2022, at 2:30 pm.
CS (OS) 525/2021
9. On the last date before this Court, i.e., 9th December, 2021, notice was
directed to be issued to the counsels for the parties appearing before the
Trial Court.
10. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant has entered appearance today.
Defendant No.1 - Shri Lakhmi Chand Alias Lakhu, who is a pujari, is
represented by Mr. Dheeraj Bhardwaj, ld. counsel.
11. The Registry has reported that the notice has also been issued to the
ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs through WhatsApp. In addition, it is a well-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:27.02.2022
10:22:06
known fact that this Court is seized of all matters relating to the Kalkaji
Mandir premises. However, none appears for the Plaintiffs today.
12. In the present suit, the Plaintiffs claim that one Smt. Bhagwati
inducted the Plaintiffs into the premises of the Kalkaji Mandir, as tenants.
The case of the Plaintiffs is that the said Smt. Bhagwati had given
permission to the Plaintiffs to reside in the said Dharamshala and pay rent to
her, in respect of piece of land situated at Bhagwati Dharamshala, Kalkaji
Mandir, New Delhi-110019 (hereinafter "suit property"). She passed away
in 2002. The prayers in this suit, against the pujari and against the SHO, PS
Kalkaji, are as under:
"i) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour
of the plaintiffs and against the defendants thereby
restraining the defendants, their servants, tenants,
agents, associates, employees, relatives etc. etc.
from using the unauthorized and illegal toilet and
bathroom constructed on the suit property of the
plaintiffs for any purpose whatsoever more
specifically shown in red colour in the site plan
annexed herewith;
ii) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction thereby
directing the defendant No.1 and 2 their officials,
agents, attorneys, servants etc. to immediately
demolish the illegal unauthorized construction of
one toilet and bathroom which was constructed on
the suit property and the same is shown in red
colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint;
iii) Award the cost of the suit in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants alongwith
litigation charges."
13. From the above prayers, it is clear that the Plaintiffs are seeking
demolition of alleged unauthorized construction of toilet and bathroom in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:27.02.2022
10:22:06
the suit property.
14. This Court is seized of several suits and proceedings relating to the
Kalkaji Mandir. The case of the Plaintiffs is one of tenants, who are seeking
relief against a pujari in respect of construction of a toilet and a bathroom.
Vide the judgment dated 27th September, 2021, this Court has already
appointed the ld. Administrator for overall administration of the Kalkaji
Mandir and vide subsequent orders, this Court has directed removal of all
encroachments and unauthorized occupants from the premises of the Kalkaji
Mandir.
15. This suit has been transferred to this Court under Section 24(1)(b)
CPC, pursuant to the judgment dated 27th September, 2021 passed in FAO
36/2021 titled Neeta Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma and
connected matters. A perusal of the Trial Court's record in this matter would
show that there has been no appearance in this matter, for the Plaintiff, for
the last several dates of hearing i.e., on 25th June 2020, 19th August 2020,
12th October 2020, 21st November 2020, 21st January 2021, 18th May 2021,
15th June 2021, 27th August 2021 and 21st October, 2021. Thus, for many
hearings before the Trial Court, none appeared for the Plaintiffs. In any
event, the Plaintiffs being mere occupants in the suit property, have no right
to seek injunction in respect of the suit property as is being sought.
16. Accordingly, the present suit is dismissed. It is made clear that the
directions issued in respect of jhuggis vide order dated 9th December, 2021,
concerning the removal of the same, would also be applicable to the
Plaintiffs herein.
CS (OS) 526/2021, CS (OS) 535/2021, CS (OS) 579/2021, CS (OS)
539/2021, CS (OS) 540/2021, CS (OS) 542/2021, CS (OS) 554/2021
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:27.02.2022
10:22:06
17. Mr. Sarvesh Bhardwaj, submits that the Plaintiff-Sh. Harish
Bhardwaj, who was a pujari in the Kalkaji Mandir, has passed away on 7th
August, 2021, issueless and without any legal heirs. He further submits that
he is the nephew of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, he wishes to move an
application seeking his impleadment as the legal heir of the Plaintiff.
18. Let the said application seeking impleadment be moved by Mr.
Sarvesh Bhardwaj.
19. The Registry to issue notice to the Defendants in these matters,
through their counsels before the Trial Court. The details of some of the said
Defendants, as provided by Mr. Sarvesh Bharadwaj, are set out below:
Suit No. Defendant No. Advocate(s)
CS (OS) 2 Mr. Aly Mirza and Mr. Prabhash
526/2021 Chandra
3, 4, 5 and 12 Mr. Srinivas Rao K, Mobile No.
9210600529, 9958022231.
Chamber NO. 667, Saket Courts
7,8,9,11,13,14,15,19,20 Mr. Amit Tanwar and Mr. Jameel
Ahmad, Chamber No. 702, Saket
Courts
CS (OS) 1 and 9 Ms. Meenakshi Kalra
535/2021 Mr. Deepak Dewan, Advocate
(Mobile No. 9810127778)
CS (OS) 1, 8 and 11 Mr. Srinivas Rao K, Mobile No.
579/2021 9210600529, 9958022231.
Chamber NO. 667, Saket Courts
2, 4, 9 and 12 Mr. Amit Tanwar and Mr. Jameel
Ahmad, Chamber No. 702, Saket
Courts
14 Jagdamba Diligence, Attorneys &
Pleaders, V-2, G/F, Green Park
Extension, New Delhi-16
19 Mr. Hamid Ali and Mr. Jitender
Kumar, Advocates
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:27.02.2022
10:22:06
CS (OS) 4 Mr. Ashok Kotnala
539/2021 8 Mr. Rakesh Nautiyal
9 Mr. R.K. Singh, Advocate
CS (OS) 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13, Mr. Amit Tanwar and Mr. Jameel
540/2021 14,16,18,19 and 21 Ahmad, Chamber No. 702, Saket
Courts
20. List on 13th April, 2022, at 2:30 pm.
CS (OS) 543/2021
21. The present suit has been filed in the name of Shri Kalkaji Mandir,
Shamlat Thok Jogians and Brahmins, Mauza Bahpur, New Delhi through
Sh. Harish Bhardwaj, who was the pujari in the Kalkaji Mandir, and has
passed away on 7th August, 2021. The suit has been filed against Kalkaji
Vikreta Sangathan II through its President, as also the Commissioner of
Delhi Police and other governmental authorities. The prayer in this suit is as
under:
"1. That the Registrar of Societies be ordered to
declare the registration of the defendants No. 1 and
2 null and void ab-initio and the defendants No. 1
and 2 be restrained not use the name, land and
buildings for their ulterior motives to mesne profits
and to run and operate any social, religious
organizations including the above said.
2. That the Hon'ble Court may pass any other
order in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant per facts and circumstances which deems
fit and proper."
22. Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, ld. Counsel appearing for the Defendant-
Vikreta Sangathan, submits that all the shopkeepers have already vacated
the premises.
23. Insofar as the occupation of the premises by the shopkeepers is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:27.02.2022
10:22:06
concerned, this Court has already appointed an Administrator in the main
matter vide order dated 27th September, 2021, and all the shopkeepers have
vacated the premises in terms of the directions issued by this Court vide
previous orders.
24. Insofar as the question as to whether the Defendant-Vikreta
Sangathan can use the name of Shri Kalkaji Mandir or not, the said issue
shall be taken up at the stage of final adjudication of the connected matters.
25. In light of these facts, no further orders are required in the present
suit. Accordingly, the present suit, along with all pending applications, is
disposed of.
CS (OS) 648/2021
26. Ms. Kiran, ld. Counsel appears for the Plaintiff-Smt. Rajwati. Mr.
R.R. Singh, ld. Counsel appears for the Defendant-Sh. Rajesh Kumar alias
Raju.
27. It is stated that the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, who is
claiming to be the widow of one Sh. Ram Kumar Bhardwaj and seeking
recovery of Rs.1,65,983/-. The case of the Plaintiff is that one portion of the
property in question comprising one room and a kothri behind shop bearing
Pvt. No.l, in premises no. D-7, Rewati Kunj, Shri Kalkaji Mandir, New
Delhi was let out to the Defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- in the year
1993. Since the Defendant failed to pay the monthly rent from 1st July, 2002
onwards, the Plaintiff had filed an eviction petition before the ld. Rent
Controller (South), Saket, New Delhi, in the year 2009.
28. Vide order dated 9th April, 2013 in eviction petition being E-93/09/09
titled Smt. Rajwati v. Sh. Rajesh Kumar, the ld. Rent Controller directed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:27.02.2022
10:22:06
the Defendant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per
month.
29. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant submits that the appeal against the said
order dated 9th April, 2013, has been dismissed during COVID-19 pandemic.
In any event, it is submitted that the Defendant has already vacated the
premises in 2015. Thus, the only issue that remains is that relating to the
outstanding dues that are to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
30. Ms. Kiran, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, submits that the Defendant
has admitted that he has not paid the rent since the year 2008, and the same
has been extracted in paragraph 6 of the plaint.
31. In view of the above, let the ld. Counsel for the Defendant seek
instructions in this matter. The Defendant shall also remain present in Court
on the next date.
32. List on 13th April, 2022, at 2:30 pm.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 22, 2022/dk/aman/ms/ad
(corrected & released on 24th February, 2022)
