Om Prakash Mehrotra vs. Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd.

05.02.2004

%

Present: Mr.K.N.Popli for the petitioner. Mr.Pawan Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.Ravinder Kumar Gupta for the petitioner. Mr.S.C.Gupta for the petitioner. Mr.K.A.Diwan for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Pandey for the petitioner. Mr.Pramod Kr.Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.Pramod Kr.Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.P.C.Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Malhotra with Mr.D.K.Malhotra and Mr.Rajesh Malhotra for the respondent. Mr.T.R.Makhija with Mr.Rakesh Makhija for respondent.

h ....................................

J,

R

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By AJULYA Certify that the digitar file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

---

<u>732/2003, 739/2003, 753/2003, 764/2003, 768/2003, 771/2003</u> <u>779/2003, 787/2003, 788/2003, 789/2003, 793/2003, 794/2003</u>. <u>796/2003, 798/2003, 801/2003, 803/2003, 804/2003, 809/2003</u>, <u>816/2003, 786/2003, 844/2003, 898/2003, 853/2003, 854/2003</u> <u>855/2003, 857/2003, 869/2003, 860/2003, 861/2003, 854/2003</u>, <u>882/2003, 883/2003, 869/2003, 908/2003, 918/2003, 925/2003</u>, <u>966/2003, 971/2003, 985/2003, 986/2003, 991/2003, 1020/2003</u>, <u>1009/2003, 1010/2003, 1012/2003, 233/2003, 584/2003</u>

• 2 -

<u>بل</u>

R

¢

In the light of the view taken by me in CM(M) S/2004 and other connected matters that there are concurrent findings of the two courts below and further that the petitioners were allotted the premises by virtue of being in the employment of respondent company and since they have ceased to be in the employment of the company as some of them have retired, some have resigned while some have taken voluntary retirement and some of them have expired and therefore they are no more entitled to retain the possession of the premises and further that dispute as to the title of the premises, if any, is between the DDA and respondent company and the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the ownership of the respondent it as they were given possession of the premises purely by virtue of being the employees of the respondent company and further that eviction proceedings cannot be allowed to be converted into title suit, these petitions have no merit and are hereby dismissed.

8

However, looking to the hardship the petitioners may face in shifting to some other place, they are given six months time to vacate the premises whereafter respondent shall be entitled to seek execution of eviction decree.

Copy of the order be placed in all the files.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

February 05, 2004 Attested ssb

ુ

1

. . *Sd/-*J.D.KAPOOR JUDGE

Court Master 2. Dolhi High Court New Delhi.