Delhi High Court
Kanwal Kishore Manchanda And Anr. vs S.D. Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. on 8 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: 121 (2005) DLT 98, 2005 (81) DRJ 715;
A reading of the plaint would disclose that the case set up by the plaintiffs is that the defendant came into possession of the suit premises which had an electricity connection and for electricity consumed defendant had to pay the electricity bills. Alleging breach against the defendant and determination of the license/tenancy, plaintiffs seek recovery of possession/mandatory injunction.
57. Since plaintiffs gave an unencumbered property to the defendant, plaintiffs would be entitled to receive possession of the property in the same state. Claims pertaining to recovery of possession, damages for unauthorized occupation, mandatory injunction to clear electricity dues and damages suffered by the plaintiffs by acts of the defendant which has resulted in other portions of the property being rendered unfit for use and occupation are so interwoven on facts that it cannot be said that the reliefs sought suffer from misjoinder or the frame of the suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 4 C.P.C.
Since the details of your case is not known, the relevancy of the above citation to your case has to be confirmed by you;
There are plenty of citations on the subject but based on the circumstances of the case.
Pur Polyurethane Products P.Ltd. vs Geeta Bhargava on 17 December, 2008 of Delhi high court;
On the pleadings of the parties 13 issues were settled, being as under:-
"1. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for concealment and misrepresentation of facts?
2. Whether the license granted by the plaintiff to the defendant was inoperative and void ab initio?
3. Whether the defendant is entitled to continue in possession of the premises?
4. Whether the plaintiff has no right to claim relief of Mandatory Injunction & Possession? OPD
21. It is thus apparent that eviction by paramount title holder is the sine qua non to non-suit the plaintiff who seeks ejectment as a landlord or seeks a mandatory injunction to restore possession as the licensor. It is true that to constitute eviction by a title paramount, physical dispossession is not necessary. But what is necessary is to establish that the title paramount was armed with a legal process for eviction which could not be lawfully resisted. In other words, a voluntary attornment would not enable the tenant to non-suit his landlord.
You can revert with details of your case for a proper judgment relevant to your subject.