IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH, LD.
CIVIL JUDGE, SOUTH-
EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO. _________ OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Brij Mohan Jha ... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Shri Rajender Kumar Soni ... DEFENDANT
REPLY TO SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:
1. That the present suit is mala fide, misconceived, mischievous, and motivated.
The plaintiff, in order to suit his frivolous case, has resorted to bogus pleas and
false averments. For the foregoing reason, the contents of the suit under reply,
unless specifically admitted, are denied in toto.
2. That the plaintiff is guilty of supressio veri and suggestio falsi and as such, is
not entitled to any relief whatsoever from this Hon’ble Court. For the
foregoing reason, the present suit deserves to be dismissed with exemplary
costs.
3. That the plaintiff has sought to propound a false and frivolous plea of having
been inducted as a tenant in the suit premises without there being an iota of
evidence in his favour to suggest, much less prove, the relationship of landlord
and tenant between the parties. For the foregoing reason, the suit under reply
deserves to be dismissed with costs.
4. That the plaintiff was employed as an office boy of the answering defendant,
some time in 1996-97. At the relevant time, the office of the answering
defendant was situated at Savitri Complex, Greater Kailash II, New Delhi.
Furthermore, the answering defendant also had a residential premises
admeasuring 173 sq. yds., being House No. 9/126 situated at Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi. Since the said property was the subject matter of a family dispute
and was consequently falling into disrepair, the answering defendant permitted
the plaintiff to reside in the basement portion of the said premises so as to
ensure its day to day maintenance. As part of his duties of maintaining the suit
premises, the plaintiff was to keep the suit premises in a neat and clean
condition. Furthermore, the plaintiff also used to pay the electricity and water
bills of the suit premises, which were reimbursed to him on production of
proof of payment. In or around 12.01.2017, the partition suit encompassing the
suit premises was settled between the answering defendant and the other
parties thereto. As a result of such settlement, the suit premises fell to the share
of the answering defendant and the office from which the answering defendant
had hitherto been carrying on his business fell to the share of his family
members. Thereafter, the answering defendant had been operating his office
from K-4, Qutab Plaza, DLF City, Phase I, Gurugram, Haryana – 122002, and
accordingly, asked the plaintiff to report for his duties at the said address.
However, the plaintiff expressed his unwillingness to work at the said address
and left the services of the answering defendant. On his departure from the
services of the answering defendant, the answering defendant requested the
plaintiff to vacate the suit premises. However, he flatly refused to vacate the
suit premises.
PARA-WISE REPLY
1. That the contents of Para 1 of the Suit are denied as wrong and false. It is
specifically denied that the Plaintiff is still in a lawful possession of the
property. It is submitted in this regards that the Plaintiff had been allowed
to live in the suit property as an employee/licensee of the answering
defendant and after the termination of the license, continues to occupy the
premises illegally and forcefully.
2. That the contents of Para 2 of the Suit are vehemently denied as wrong and
false. It is denied that the defendant employed the plaintiff as a Surveyor
in his organisation since November 1996. It is submitted to that the
answering defendant had in fact employed the plaintiff as an office boy, in
1996-97.
3. That the contents of Para 3 of the Suit are admitted. It is admitted that the
Plaintiff was initially working under the answering defendant as an office
boy in the answering defendant’s office at Savitri Complex, Greater
Kailash – II, New Delhi, and while working in the capacity as
abovementioned, he was allowed to reside in the suit property.
4. That the contents of Para 4 of the Suit are denied as wrong and false. It is
categorically denied that the Plaintiff is residing in the said house on a
meagre rate of rent of Rs. 200/- initially and now the same was increased
to Rs. 500/- a month. It is further denied that the said was a oral tenancy
and no rent agreement or rent receipt was ever issued by the defendant. It
is also denied that the said oral agreement was witnessed in the presence of
two witnesses. It is humbly submitted that the Plaintiff was employed as
an office boy of the answering defendant, some time in 1996-97. At that
time, the office of the Plaintiff was situated at Savitri Complex, Greater
Kailash II, New Delhi. The answering defendant also had a residential
premises admeasuring 173 sq. yds., being House No. 9/126 situated at
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. Since the said property was the subject matter
of a family dispute and was consequently falling into disrepair, the
answering defendant permitted the plaintiff to reside in the basement
portion of the said premises so as to ensure its day to day maintenance. As
part of his duties of maintaining the suit premises, the plaintiff was to keep
the suit premises in a neat and clean condition. Furthermore, the plaintiff
also used to pay the electricity and water bills of the suit premises, which
were reimbursed to him on production of proof of payment.
5. That the contents of Para 5 of the Suit are denied as wrong and false. It is
denied that as this was a employer employee relationship the plaintiff and
the defendant did not want the said agreement be reduced to writing and as
such the same was an oral tenancy. It is humbly submitted that in order to
suit his frivolous case, the Plaintiff is propounding an absurd and illogical
factual matrix. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff was allowed to
reside in the suit property only in his capacity as an employee of the
answering defendant and no rent whatsoever was charged from him at any
point in time. As such, the legal position of the Plaintiff is nearly that of a
licensee as defined under Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.
6. That the contents of Para 6 of the Suit are denied for want of knowledge
and the Plaintiff is put up to strict proof thereof.
7. That the contents of Para 7 of the Suit are denied as wrong and false. It is
denied that the defendant shifted his household goods from the Malviya
Nagar House and had shifted to the new address i.e. A-8/22, DLF City-I,
Gurgaon, Haryana on 01.09.2000 and asked the Plaintiff to stay there and
take care of the building from anybody occupying the same. It is further
denied that the two witnesses in the presence of whom the defendant had
agreed to give the said property to the agreed to give the said property to
the plaintiff were (1) Shri Shambhu Nath Jha, and (2) Shri Devender
Prasad Aryal. It is submitted that the Plaintiff himself admits in the Para
under reply that he was allowed to reside in the suit property so as to take
care of the same and as such his claim of being a tenant in the suit property
is bereft of merit. Furthermore, the witnesses mentioned in the Para under
reply, who allegedly witnessed the commencement of tenancy between the
parties are presumably the relatives/acquaintances of the Plaintiff and the
answering defendant has never met either of them, much less making them
witnesses to the commencement of tenancy.
8. That the contents of Para 8 of the Suit are vehemently denied as wrong and
false. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit
property since 1996 and has been paying the electricity and water bills
from time to time in respect of the property. It is humbly submitted to this
Hon’ble Court that the Plaintiff has been residing on the suit premises
since 1996-97 on the directions of the answering defendant. It is further
submitted that although, the plaintiff used to pay the electricity and water
bills of the suit premises, the same were duly reimbursed to him by the
answering defendant on production of proof of payment.
9.11. That the contents of Paras 9-11 of the suit under reply, in so far as they
relate to various documents showing the address of the Plaintiff as 9/126,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 are matters of record and need no
reply. It is however submitted that the Plaintiff had been allowed to reside
in the suit property in the capacity of an employee and as such his status is
merely that of a licensee as defined under Section 52 of the Indian
Easements Act, 1882.
12. That the contents of Para 12 of the Suit are vehemently denied as they are
wrong and false. It is specifically denied that the on 23.03.2017 the
answering defendant illegally terminated the services of the Plaintiff and
warned him not to visit the office again and further threatened the Plaintiff
to vacate the suit property or he would have to face dire consequences. It is
humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the answering defendant had
been operating his office from K-4, Qutab Plaza, DLF City, Phase I,
Gurugram, Haryana – 122002 and accordingly, asked the plaintiff to report
for his duties at the said address. It is further submitted that it was in fact
the Plaintiff who himself expressed his unwillingness to work at the said
address and left the services of the answering defendant. It is further
submitted that upon the termination of the employment of the Plaintiff
with the answering defendant, the answering defendant also revoked his
license to reside in the suit property and since thereafter the Plaintiff has
been illegally and forcefully occupying the suit property.
13. That the contents of Para 13 of the Suit are vehemently denied as they are
wrong and false. It is categorically denied that the defendant is bent upon
ousting the Plaintiff and his family from the said premises, and has stated
that he would throw out him out of the said premises by using force as he
has many people at his back who can throw him and his belongings on the
road. It is humbly submitted that when the answering defendant asked the
plaintiff to report for his duties at his office at K-4, Qutab Plaza, DLF
City, Phase I, Gurugram, Haryana – 122002, the Plaintiff expressed his
unwillingness to work at the said address and left the services of the
answering defendant. It is humbly submitted that after his departure from
the services, when the answering defendant requested the plaintiff to
vacate the suit premises, he flatly refused to vacate the suit premises.
14. That the contents of Para 14 of the Suit are vehemently denied as they are
wrong and false. It is categorically denied that in the week commencing
from 18.05.2017, the defendant and his accomplices had been forcing the
Plaintiff to vacate and handover the possession of the house lest they
threatened to illegally and forcibly dispossess the Plaintiff and his family
from the suit property. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that all
these fabricated and concocted allegations are absolutely incorrect and
mala fide only to create a false cause of action against the defendant.
15. That the contents of Para 15 of the Suit are vehemently denied as they are
wrong and false. It is categorically denied that the cause of action firstly
arose on 23.03.2017 when the defendant illegally terminated the services
of the Plaintiff and also threatened him to vacate the suit property. It is
also denied that the cause of action for filing the suit again arose on
10.04.2017 when the defendant threatened the plaintiff with dire
consequences and that the defendant would forcibly evict the plaintiff
from the said premise. It is also vehemently denied that the cause of action
lastly arose on 18.05.2017 when the defendant again threatened the
plaintiff to vacate the said suit property within 3 days. It is further denied
that the cause of action is still subsisting and continuing one as the
defendant and his accomplices are adamant and bent upon to carry out
their illegal designs to evict the Plaintiff from the said premises. It is
humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that all these averments are
completely false and concocted and the Plaintiff has no iota of proof to
establish any of the allegations as mentioned in this Para. It is further
submitted that the Plaintiff himself expressed his unwillingness to
continue working under the answering defendant. It is also submitted that
after his departure from the services, when the answering defendant
requested the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises, he flatly refused to do so
and has been wrongfully residing in the suit premises.
16. That the contents of Para 16 are partly admitted to the extent that the said
property is situated in Delhi. It is denied that because the Plaintiff is
residing at the suit property, this Hon’ble Court has the proper jurisdiction
to try and decide the present suit. It is submitted that as per the case of the
Plaintiff himself (which is patently false and denied accordingly) the
Plaintiff is a tenant of the answering defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.
500/- and as such is covered under the provisions of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 which bares Civil Courts from exercising jurisdiction in
matters pertaining thereto.
17. That the contents of Para 17 are matters of record and need no reply.
18. That the contents of Para 18 of the Suit are vehemently denied as they are
wrong and false. It is denied that the plaintiff has no other remedy accept
to filing present suit and accordingly relief sought for.
19. That the Prayer is vehemently denied. The Plaintiff is not entitled to any
relief whatsoever.
PRAYER
In view of the facts and circumstances as abovementioned, it is most
respectfully prayed to this Hon’ble Court to kindly grant the following reliefs
to the applicant:
(i) To dismiss the present suit;
(ii) To award cost of proceedings in favour of the answering defendant and
against the Plaintiff.
(iii) To pass such orders as may be deemed fit and necessary in the interest
of justice.
NEW DELHI
DATED:
DEFENDANT
THROUGH
ANUJ HANDA
ADVOCATE FOR THE DEFENDANT
E-102, LGF, KALKAJI,
NEW DELHI- 110019
PHONE: +91 11 4607 8301 – 3
E-MAIL: anuj.handa@handaandcompany.in
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this day of November, 2017, that the contents of paras
are true and correct based on my personal knowledge. The contents of paras
are based on legal advice received and believed to be true. The last para is a
prayer made to this Hon’ble Court.
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH, LD. CIVIL JUDGE, SOUTH-
EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO. _________ OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Brij Mohan Jha ... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Shri Rajender Kumar Soni ... DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Rajendra Kumar Soni, son of Late Shri Om Prakash Soni, aged about years,
residing at A-8/22 DLF COLONY, PHASE-I, GURGAON- 122002 do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1. That I am the Answering Defendant, and am conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the present matter and therefore am competent to swear this
affidavit.
2. That I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying reply to the
suit for permanent injunction in filing the written statement and say that
contents of the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and as
borne out from the records. No part of it false and nothing material is
concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi, on this day of November, 2017, that the contents of this
affidavit are true and correct to the best of knowledge and belief. No part of it is false
and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
