ORDER
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
———————-
CM No. /2001 ----------------------
1. This is an application filed by the appellants seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the impugned order, the pleadings and documents filed before the learned Single judge which have been filed in the appeal for reference. The application is allowed subject to just exceptions.
FAO (OS) 212/2001 and CM 520/2001
———————————-
2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 30th April, 2001 allowing the application of respondent No.1, who is the plaintiff in the suit, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and directing the appellants to forthwith remove themselves from the suit premises i.e. D-20 Vijay Nagar, Delhi-110009 and restraining them from re-entering the said premises.
3.
The suit was filed for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction by respondent in respect of the aforesaid suit property. It was alleged that the suit property was given on rent to respondent No.1 being a refugee, by the Ministry of Rehabilitation on rental basis. Subsequently an offer was made to the occupants of such houses of purchase the same on leasehold basis on a fixed price to be paid in Installments. Pursuant thereto respondent No.1 made and application on 27.9.1956 and an agreement on 12.12.1958 was executed withe the Government of India for purchase of the suit property. Installments were paid by respondent No.1 out of his salary and savings and finally lease deed and deed of conveyance were both executed on 31.5.1956 and duly registered. Appellant No.1 and respondents 2 and 3 are the sons of respondent No.1. Appellant No.2 and 3 are the sons of respondent No.1. Appellant No.2 is the wife and appellant No.3 is the son of appellant No.1. Respondent No.1 has stated in the plaint that his personal relations with the appellant had deteriorated and since the appellants were only staying with respondent No.1 as a licensee, their license was revoked and the appellant were asked to remove themselves from the suit property. On failure to do so suit for the aforementioned reliefs was filed. Along with suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed, which as been allowed by the impugned order.
4. The suit was contested by the appellant inter alia claiming that the suit property was given to the family of the respondent No.1 for purposes of their rehabilitation in lieu of the ancestral family property which was left by the family at the time of migration in the erstwhile West Punjab (now in Pakistan). Thus respondent No.1 is not entitled to the reliefs claimed for in the suit.
5.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, has sought to rely on the allotment card dated 11th July, 1950 wherein Along with respondent No.1 there is mention of the other members of his family. However, there is no mention of the name of respondent No.1 as he was not even born on that date. The learned counsel has contended that the said allotment card shows that the allotment was for the benefit of the entire family. Out attention was also drawn to a circular dated 6.6.1964 of the Land & Development office in respect of sale of built up plots in the rehabilitation colonies of Delhi to contend that two units were liable to be allotted to a family of more than 5 members. As respondent No.1 had disclosed that his family comprised of more than 5 members, he was allotted two units.
6.
We have been taken through the pleadings and the documents on record of the file of learned Single Judge as also in the Appeal paper-book. The application forms for the transfer of the allotment of the property submitted by respondent No.1 dated 27th September, 1956 shows that in column No. 9 relating to “compensation application, Registration number of the applicant” an compensation as a refugee was utilised by respondent No.1 for purchase of the property in question. Respondent NO.1 has also filed receipts of payments of the amount. The payments were made by respondent No.1 from time to time which are stated to have been made exclusively from his salary and earnings. The appellants, apart from making a bald allegation of the property being ancestral have not placed any material or documents on record to substantiate their plea. On the other hand, the documents filed by respondent No.1 clearly shows that respondent NO.1 alone exercised the rights to purchase the property, made payments of the same and the lease deed was also executed in the name of respondent No.1 in individual capacity and not for the benefit of the family. The application of respondent No.1 also shows that there is no question of utilisation of any alleged compensation received from the Government in lieu of property in Pakistan.
7.
Learned counsel for the appellants sought to rely on the judgments of Ram Das T. Chugani vs. Wazir Chand Narang and Indra Sharma vs. Gopal Dass and others to contend that the deemed date of transfer of the property should relate back to the date of allotment when such allotment is made under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)Act, 1954. We are of the view that the said judgments does not advance the case of the appellants as the appellants cannot establish any right to the property even if it relates back to the date of allotment. The mere mention of the names of the other family members in the allotment card cannot be of any help to the appellants. We may further add that the appellants were not even born and are not even mentioned in the allotment card.
8.
We are thus of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised discretion on sound principles. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9.
While dismissing the appeal, in the interests of justice we modify the impugned order to the extent that in terms of the impugned order 15 days time was granted to the appellants to withdraw themselves from the suit property. The said time period is now extended up to 30th June, 2001 and we further direct that in case respondent No.1 would ultimately fail in the suit, he shall put the appellants back in possession of the suit premises.