JUDGEMENT
M.L.MEHTA,J. -
(1.)THE plaintiffs have filed the instant suit for ejectment, mesne profits, damages and mandatory injunction directing the defendant to
discharge all claims and demands of the Delhi Vidyut Board (for short
,,the DVB) and its successor, BSES, in respect of ground floor of
property bearing No. B -87, Maya Puri Industrial Area, Phase -I, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ,,the suit property). The plaintiffs have
also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 20,00,500/ - (Rupees Twenty
Lakhs and Five Hundred Only).
(2.)THE plaintiffs case is that, their father, Sh. Ram Prakash, granted a temporary license to the defendant vide license agreement
dated February 25, 1983 in respect of the suit property, comprising of
right side office rooms, center bay and godown and one bay without
any portion of the terrace. The monthly fee fixed for the said portion
was Rs. 10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand Only). The plaintiffs submit
that Sh. Ram Prakash died on July 25, 1990, leaving behind a will in
their favour. And that in consonance of the said will, the defendant
attorned the plaintiffs as licensors/owners of the suit property and
started paying license fee to them. The plaintiffs further submit that
subsequently, the defendant was permitted to use the first floor of the
suit property, resulting in increase in the license fee to Rs. 12,000/ -
(Rupees Twelve Thousand Only). And that after February 1992, the
license fee was further enhanced to Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty
Thousand) p/m.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant stopped paying the license fee on October 1, 1994, whereupon they filed CS (OS) No.
952/1998 for recovery of arrears of the license fee. And that subsequently, vide notice dated November 16, 2002, the plaintiffs
terminated the said license with effect from May 31, 2003 and directed
the defendant to remove its belongings therefrom. And that the notice
also specified that if the defendant failed to comply with the said
direction, it would be liable to pay use and occupation charges which
worked to be Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rupees One Lakh Only) per month at that
time. The notice also demanded that the outstanding license fees be
paid by the defendant.
(3.)THE plaintiffs submit that the defendant replied to the said notice through its counsel vide letter dated March 1, 2003. The plaintiffs
submit that in the said letter, the defendant raised frivolous pleas. The
defendant in the letter sought to deny that Sh. Ram Prakash was the
proprietor of M/s Ram Prakash Kanwal Kishore but only as one of its
partners. The plaintiffs claim that this stand is a clear departure from
the defendants letter dated October 20, 1990. In the said letter, the
defendant admitted and attorned to Sh. Ram Prakash, recognizing that
he was the sole proprietor of M/s Ram Prakash Kanwal Kishore. The
plaintiffs submit that the defendant also wrongly stated in the reply that
an area measuring 208.75 sq. mts. was surrendered to them on
February 21, 1993. And that a further area of 8.8 sq. mts. of the stairs
leading to the first floor was surrendered to the plaintiffs and that as on
March 1, 1996, the defendant was in possession of an area measuring
643.5 sq. mts. The plaintiffs submit that the defendant surrendered 1/4th of the Center Bay measuring 1750 sq. mts. in the year 1993 and the
entire first floor was surrendered on June 23, 2002. And that the said
surrender was voluntarily made by the defendant without any reduction
in their liability to pay the license fee.