2008 (11) TMI 739

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....allotted premises in question for his residence as an incident of employment. He died on 13.3.1982. The petitioners are legal heirs of late H.Kameshwar and are in possession of the premises allotted to H.Kameshwar since his death. After death of H. Kameshwar, one of the sons was given service on compassionate grounds by respondent but he also resigned on 13.7.1984. The legal heirs of H. Kameshwar did not hand over the vacant possession of the premises allotted to H. Kameshwar after his death or after the resignation of his son and continued to be in illegal possession of this premises from 1984 till date on the basis of litigation in costs. 3. An eviction petition was filed by Harijan Sewak Sangh against the petitioner who are legal heirs ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that the respondent was a corporate body. Therefore, the order of the learned ARCT was bad in law. 5. I consider that the argument advanced by the petitioners' counsel is baseless and frivolous one. The respondent in eviction petition has categorically stated that the respondent was a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petition was filed through Secretary of the Society. No issue was raised by the petitioners at any stage that the petition was not filed by a competent person or Harijan Sewak Sangh was not a registered Society. An observation by the ARCT that it was a corporate body would not change the basic facts of the premises having been allotted to late H. Kameshwar by the respondent as an incident of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oom, verandah, store, kitchen, bath and WC on ground floor at one of the prime locations in North Delhi near Kingsway Camp. The premises is situated in a sprawling green area and has large grounds around it, I consider that the petitioners are liable to pay as costs to the respondent-society for the unlawful gains by them by illegally holding this property for 24 years and 4 months. The average rental value of the property in present days is around ₹ 10,000/- per month. Though property was given on rent in 1982 to the petitioners' father at ₹ 102.50 paise per month, but when premises are given to the employees on rent normally market rent is not charged and only nominal rent is charged. I consider that in order to see what w....