Delhi District Court Mrs. Rupan Jain vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 17 August, 2022 IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02: NORTH ROHINI COURT COMPLEX: DELHI CS (Comm.) 125/2020 CNR No. DLNT010139792016 IN THE MATTER OF: Mrs. Rupan Jain W/o Sh Raj Kamal R/o H. No. 61, Gali Khazanchi Opp. Kumar Cinema Hall Chandini Chowk, Delhi110006 ............ Plaintiff VERSUS 1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Delhi Division) 10th Floor, Jeevan Bharti, TowerII Connaught Circus, New Delhi110001 2nd Adress: Shakurbasti Installation, 1st Floor, Shakurbasti, Delhi, Rohtak Road, Delhi 110056. 2. Kailash Chand Bansal S/o Sh. Shanti Prasad R/o C4, Shivaji Park New Delhi 110026 ......... Defendants Date of institution : 12.10.2001 Date of Conclusion of Argument : 22.07.2022 Date of Order/Judgment : 17.08.2022 JUDGMENT 1. This judgment shall dispose of suit filed by plaintiff for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. CS (Comm.) No. 125/20 Rupan Jain v. Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & Ors. DoJ 17.08.2022 Page No. 1/37 2. Initially, present suit was filed only against defendant No.1 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Subsequently, defendant No.2 Sh. K. C. Bansal filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for getting himself impleaded in the suit claiming that he had purchased the suit property from plaintiff and her brothers. Said application was allowed vide order dt 21.10.2003 and when challenge to said order was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court vide order dt. 13.07.2004, plaintiff filed amended plaint to which defendant No.1 BPCL adopted its former written statement and defendant No.2 filed written statement to the amended plaint. Facts of the case have been extracted from amended plaint, written statement of defendant No.1 to the original plaint, written statement of the defendant No.2 to the amended plaint and replications of plaintiff to those written statements. 3. Plaintiff claims herself to be owner of land measuring 1000 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra No. 403/90, village Azadpur, Delhi and defendant No. 1 to be tenant of the said land at the rate of Rs. 400/ per month and which land defendant No.1 has been using for the purpose of running a petrol pump. 4. Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain, the father of the plaintiff was owner of the said land which he had let out to the defendant No. 1. After the death of Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain on 29.08.1980, the ownership of the said land devolved on his legal heirs namely Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Dr Praveen Kumar Jain, Smt. Rupan Jain and Smt. Renu Jain. Smt. Renu Jain released and relinquished all her rights in the properties left behind by her father in favour of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Dr CS (Comm.) No. 125/20 Rupan Jain v. Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & Ors. DoJ 17.08.2022 Page No. 2/37 Praveen Kumar Jain and the plaintiff by registered relinquishment deed. 5. All the properties including the above land, left behind by Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain became subject matter of partition suit No. 236 of 1985, titled as "Smt. Rupan Jain v. Shri Anil Kumar Jain & Ors" before the Hon'ble High Court. During the pendency of the said suit, there was a compromise between the parties and on an application of the parties, a consent decree dt. 13.02.1991 was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter and by virtue of the said compromise/consent decree dt. 13.02.1991, the ownership of the above said land came to the share of the plaintiff. 6. Late Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain had inducted the defendant No.1 as tenant in the above said plot of land with effect from 01.03.1958, at the rent of Rs. 400/ per month, by a written lease which expired by efflux of time on 28.02.1983. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 became a month to month tenant which begins on the first day of every English calendar month and ends on the last day of the same month. 7. The plaintiff duly informed the defendant No. 1 about the compromise/consent decree dt. 13.02.1991 in the above partition suit and also sent to the defendant No. 1 a copy of the said dec