Anita Sethi and Others vs Subhash Sethi and Others

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—By this application filed under 151 CPC applicant/Defendant No. 2(k) Smt. Kiran Kapur had sought leave of the Court to let out property -Ground Floor No. B-328, New Friends Colony along with car parking in the driveway, garage with open verandah and WC above the garage and one room in the rear courtyard. It is submitted by the applicant that she was the absolute owner of the property and the property has been wrongly shown as subject matter of the suit. She stated that property initially belonged to Smt. Om Kumari Sethi wife of late Shri Tara Chand Sethi. Shri Tara Chand Sethi and three sons had pre deceased Smt. Om Kumari Sethi so she succeeded to the estate of her husband and all her sons. Smt. Om Kumari Sethi died on 19.10.2007 leaving behind a Will dated 3.10.2007 bequeathing all her movable and immovable properties in favour of her daughter Smt. Kiran Kapur, the applicant herein. Smt. Kiran Kapur claimed that she was the sole owner of this property and the property was lying vacant, she should be permitted to let it out and collect rent during pendency of the suit. The application is opposed by the other parties on the ground that this property was very much subject matter of the suit and the �Will� produced by Smt. Kiran Kapur has already been challenged.

A perusal of proceedings dated 14.5.2007 of this Court would show that defendant No. 2 (original defendant) was considered by this Court as owner of this property. This Court had passed an order that the builder (defendant No. 7), who had an agreement with defendant No. 2, shall handover the possession of basement and ground floor to defendant No. 2 within 15 days (from the date of order) and shall also obtain completion certificate in respect of the building and in case there was any compoundable deviation, compounding fee shall be deposited by the builder.

In view of this order, it is apparent that this Court was fully aware of the status of the property and that is why the possession of the property was directed to be handed over to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 left behind Will in favour of the applicant, who has been impleaded as the LR of defendant No. 2 in the suit. I consider that there is no reason why the applicant/defendant No. 2 (k) should not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the property which apparently belongs to her. She is therefore given liberty to let out the portion of the property mentioned in the application. She shall however, file the agreement entered into with the tenant in the Court. She shall not create a perpetual tenancy so as to indirectly sell the property. She shall maintain a proper account of the rent received, and security amount received, if any. The applicant shall put the security amount in a bank as fixed deposit so as to earn interest. With these directions, the application is disposed of.

CS(OS) No. 1768/2005

List on the date fixed.