SHAUKAT ALI vs SMT. KAILASH RANI AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 13th January, 2025 + C.R.P. 211/2024 & CM APPL. 39499/2024 SHAUKAT ALI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Mishra, Adv. versus SMT. KAILASH RANI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. G.S. Yadav & Mr. Siddharth Tripathi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN ORDER % 13.01.2025 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21.05.2024 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, pursuant to which the application filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) was allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was rejected. 2. The petitioner had filed a suit bearing No. CS SCJ 898/2024, for possession of the premises bearing No. 5657/10, Gali Hanuman Mandir, Nabi Karim, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar, Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:01.02.2025 C.R.P. 211/2024 Page 1 of 10 12:42:29 Delhi-110055 (hereafter ‘the suit premises’), claiming that he was inducted as a tenant in the month of January, 1982. 3. It is claimed that the suit premises were let out for commercial purposes by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, namely Sh. Somnath. 4. After the death of Sh. Somnath, Respondent No. 1 had been collecting the rent of the premises from the petitioner, on behalf of the legal heirs of Sh. Somnath. 5. In the plaint, it is stated that Respondent No. 1 had sent a legal notice dated 08.06.2022 to vacate and hand over the peaceful possession of the suit premises and also to clear the arrears of rent. 6. It is claimed that the respondents have not been allowing the petitioner to use the suit premises, which has also led to filing of the complaint a