Sun. Sep 20th, 2020

Surabhi Gehlot And Ors. vs Swarn Kanta Punj on 18 September, 2015

2 min read

Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate
alongwith Mr. R.V. Saini, Mr. Uday and Mr.
Ayush Arora, Advocates.
1. This common judgment will dispose of two connected appeals, i.e
FAO No. 367/2013, (where the defendant complains that the application for
rejection of the respondent’s plaint in the suit – I.A. No. 5932/2013 in CS
(OS) 3559/2012- was wrongly dismissed) and FAO(OS) 420/2013, (where
the ad-interim injunction claimed in I.A. No. 1035/2013 in the said suit was
granted). The application for rejection of plaint was dismissed by order
dated 08.07.2013 and the temporary injunction was granted by an order
dated 06.08.2013.
2. The factual matrix within which the present dispute arises is as
follows. Since 1948, one Shri Chaman Lal, and his brother, Shri Swaran
Lal’s family had been living at 12, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi
(hereafter the demised premises) as tenants. After the latter’s death, his
family members continued in possession of the premises and his widow, the
respondent in the present matter has been paying rent to the landlord.
Subsequently even after Shri Chaman Lal moved away, and his children
were married, the plaintiff continued to reside in the demised premises. In
December 2012, the premises were sold by the erstwhile owners to the
appellants. The plaintiff alleged that on 14.12.2012, the appellants put up an
iron gate at the opening of the passage leading to the demised premises,
thereby obstructing her passage to the premises by car and parking the same
in the open space adjacent to the demised premises. The
defendant/appellants argued that the plaintiff had in no way been denied

FAO (OS) 367/2013 & FAO (OS) 420/2013 Page 2
access or impeded in her approach to the demised premises; only that she
cannot access the premises by car and/or park her car in the open space.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply