- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 12 October 2018
- Bench
- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
- Case no.
- RSA 148/2018
Judgment
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. OCTOBER 12, 2018 'gsr'
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 12th October, 2018. + SANTOSH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Avniash Kumar Lakhanpal, Adv. Versus COL. SATSANGI'S KIRAN MEMORIAL AIPECCS EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX & ANR ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM Nos.42968/2018 & 42970/2018 (both for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. RSA 148/2018 & CM No.42969/2018 (for stay) 3. This Regular Second Appeal (RSA) under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 16th August, 2018 in RCA SCJ No.8/17 (CNR No.DLST03-000251-2017) of the Court of Senior Civil Judge (South)] of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC filed by the appellant / defendant against the judgment and decree [dated 7th December, 2016 in CS No.83061/2016 of the Court of Civil Judge-02 (South)] allowing on admissions the suit of the respondents / plaintiffs for mandatory injunction directing and commanding the appellant / defendant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of one room on the ground floor of the property of the respondents / plaintiffs being a public school in the name of Col. Satsangi's Kiran Memorial Public School established by the respondent/plaintiff no.2 All India Personality Enhancement and Cultural Centre for Scholars Society and the hostel accommodation wherein was being managed by the respondent/plaintiff no.1 Col. Satsangi's Kiran Memorial AIPECCS Educational Complex. 4. The counsel for the appellant / defendant has been heard and the copies of the trial court record annexed to the memorandum of appeal perused. 5. The respondents / plaintiffs instituted the suit, from which this Second Appeal arises, pleading that (i) the respondent no.2 / plaintiff is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and has established Col. Satsangi's Kiran Memorial Public School; (ii) the said school has a complex in the name of Col. Satsangi's Kiran Memorial AIPECCS Educational Complex which inter alia runs and manages the hostel for the students and also a residential complex for staff and teachers, run by the respondent no.2 / plaintiff Society; (iii) the appellant / defendant had been retained by the respondent no.1 / plaintiff for washing clothes of the students on piece rate basis fixed and decided mutually between the appellant / defendant and the respondent no.1 / plaintiff; (iv) the role of the appellant / defendant was confined only to washing the clothes of the students and to get payment from the respondent no.1 / plaintiff on piece rate basis; (v) for the said purposes, the appellant / defendant was provided two rooms for his residence-cum-washing in the property aforesaid of the respondents / plaintiffs; (vi) the license granted by the respondents / plaintiffs to the appellant / defendant in this regard was withdrawn in June, 2013 but the appellant / defendant did not leave the two rooms in which he was allowed to carry out his duties; (vii) the respondents / plaintiffs could take back possession of only one room on 11th January, 2014 but the appellant / defendant resisted vacating the other room; (viii) the appellant / defendant instituted a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents / plaintiffs from taking possession of the other room but the said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 15th July, 2015; (ix) in the aforesaid judgment, it was held that the status of the appellant / defendant was merely that of a licensee and which licence had been terminated on 11th July, 2013; (x) the application of the appellant / defendant for interim stay in the aforesaid suit was also dismissed and the appeal preferred by the appellant / defendant thereagainst also dismissed; and, (xi) the appellant / defendant, in the pleadings in the suit filed by him, also admitted being a licensee under the respondents / plaintiffs. Hence, the reliefs of mand
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.