IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.S.(OS) NO. ____ OF 2013

MEMO OF PARTIES

1.

SHRI SUMER SEGAL (S.SEGAL)

S/O LATE SHRI SATGUR NATH SEGAL
R/O 59B, POCKET-A, SFS DDA,
MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE-III,
NEW DELHI-110096
SOLE TRUSTEE OF DEWAN BAHADUR
BISHESHUR NATH RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST

2.

DEWAN BAHADUR BISHESHUR NATH RELIGIOUS AND

CHARITABLE TRUST
THROUGH ITS SOLE TRUSTEE
SHRI SUMER SEGAL (S.SEGAL)
AT 59B, POCKET-A, SFS DDA,
MAYUR VIHAR-III,
NEW DELHI-110096
PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS
1.

SMT.RAJ RANI SHARMA

WIDOW OF LATE SHRI VINAY CHAND SHARMA

2.

SHRI AMIT SHARMA

S/O LATE SHRI VINAY CHAND SHARMA

3.

SHRI SUMIT SHARMA

S/O LATE SHRI VINAY CHAND SHARMA

4.

MS. MEGHA SHARMA

D/O LATE SHRI VINAY CHAND SHARMA
ALL 1 TO 4 AT SHRI VISHESHWAR MAHADEV TEMPLE
DEWAN BAHADUR BISHESHUR NATH
RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST
322, KUCHA GHANSI RAM,
CHANDNI CHOWK,
DELHI-110006
...DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFF
DELHI
DATED:

THROUGH:
(NARESH GUPTA) (ANKIT JAIN)
ADVOCATES
A-26, LGF, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi-110014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT DELHI

C.S.(OS) NO.

OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:1.

SHRI SUMER SEGAL (S.SEGAL)

S/O LATE SHRI SATGUR NATH SEGAL
R/O 59B, POCKET-A, SFS DDA,
MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE-III,
NEW DELHI-110096
SOLE TRUSTEE OF DEWAN BAHADUR
BISHESHUR NATH RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST

2.

DEWAN BAHADUR BISHESHUR NATH RELIGIOUS AND

CHARITABLE TRUST
THROUGH ITS SOLE TRUSTEE
SHRI SUMER SEGAL (S.SEGAL)
AT 59B, POCKET-A, SFS DDA,
MAYUR VIHAR-III,
NEW DELHI-110096.
PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS
1.

SMT.RAJ RANI SHARMA

WIDOW OF LATE SHRI VINAY CHAND SHARMA

2.

SHRI AMIT SHARMA

S/O LATE SHRI VINAY CHAND SHARMA

3.

SHRI SUMIT SHARMA

S/O LATE SHRI VINAY CHAND SHARMA

4.

MS. MEGHA SHARMA

D/O LATE SHRI VINAY CHAND SHARMA
ALL 1 TO 4 AT SHRI VISHESHWAR MAHADEV TEMPLE
DEWAN BAHADUR BISHESHUR NATH
RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST
322, KUCHA GHANSI RAM,
CHANDNI CHOWK,
DELHI-110006
...DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.

That the property involved in the present suit is the premises bearing
No.322, situated in Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The
same shall be referred hereinafter as the suit property. It has been
clearly described in the site plan in colour RED.

2.

That the suit property houses a Temple in the name and style of
Visheshwar Mahadev Temple in a portion on the Ground Floor along
with a residential portion comprising of two rooms, stores, verandah,
kitchen and toilet attached to the said temple. There is also one room,
a kitchen and a toilet on the first floor.

3.

That the said residential portion comprising of two rooms, stores,

verandah, kitchen, toilet has always been and is meant for the
residence of the Sewadar of the said Temple which facility has been
granted to such Sewadar for the purposes of conducting daily sewa/
pooja of the said temple and also for celebrating annual religious
festivals such as Maha Shivratri, Janmashtmi, etc. etc. and also for
taking care of the Temple.

4.

That one Dewan Rai Bahadur Bisheshur Nath, who owned several
properties moveable and immoveable including the suit property, had
during his life time created a fund of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand only), out of his estates for being used for religious and
charitable purposes by his family members in terms of his last and
final testament dated 29.08.1929 duly signed and executed by him in
the presence of three attesting witnesses in accordance with law and
duly registered with the Registrar concerned.

5.

That the said Temple Visheshwar Mahadev Temple was and has
always been a private family temple meant for worship by the family
members of the family of the said Dewan Bahadur Bisheshur Nath
and said fund of Rs.30,000/- was to be utilised for the maintenance of
the said temple and for other allied purposes as detailed in the said
registered testament dated 29.08.1929 left by him at the time of his
death.

6.

That said Dewan Bahadur Bisheshur Nath had also appointed his
second son Rai Bahadur Dr. Baij Nath as Executor of the said Will
dated 29.08.1929 and as Administrator of the estate left by him.

7.

That the said Rai Bahadur Bisheshur Nath since expired in the year
about 1930 and his wife in the year 1936.

8.

That on the demise of the said Rai Bahadur Bisheshur Nath, the
aforesaid son Rai Bahadur Dr. Baij Nath being the Executor of the
said Will and Administrator of the Estate took charge of the entire
estate left by the deceased Rai Bahadur Bisheshur Nath in terms of
his Will dated 19.08.1929.

9.

That the said Temple Visheshwar Mahadev Temple also came under
the charge of the said RAI BAHADUR Dr. Baij Nath in terms of the
said Will dated 29.08.1929 who started managing the said Temple
property.

10.

That the said Rai Bahadur Dr. Baij Nath had in the year 1949
appointed Shri Harish Chander Shastri as sewadar of the said Temple

as an employee for the purposes of conducting daily sewa/ pooja of

the Temple and also for conducting lectures on Bhagwat Geeta and
look after day to day affairs connected with the said Temple.

11.

That the said Shri RAI BAHADUR Dr. Baij Nath had handed over the
entire administration and management of the said Trust to his son Shri
Prem Nath Segal by means of a Deed of Trust dated 13.01.1950. In
the said Deed of Trust Shri Prem Nath Segal was invested with the
power to appoint another male member from the descendants of RAI
BAHADUR Dr. Baij Nath. The said Rai Bahadur Dr Baij Nath died in
the year 1950.

12.

That Shri Prem Nath Segal in terms of the powers conferred on him
vide Trust Deed dated 13.01.1950 nominated his eldest son Shri
Prakash Nath Segal as his successor to the office of the Trustee after
his death by means of duly executed and registered testament dated
24.05.1951.

13.

That the aforesaid Shi Prem Nath Segal had expired on 05.10.1970.
On his death his son Shri Prakash Nath Segal assumed charge of the
aforesaid Trust as also the Visheshwar Mahadev Temple.

14.

That on 26.03.1985 a Trust Deed was executed between Shri Prakash

Nath Segal and Shri Sumer Segal (S. Segal). By means of the said
document Shri Prakash Nath Segal has appointed the plaintiff no.1
has been herein as the Sole Trustee. Since then the plaintiff no.1 is
acting as an owner and sole Trustee for the estate of the said Trust
including Visheshwar Mahadev Temple.

As such the plaintiff no.1

herein is the sole Trustee of Dewan Bahadur Bisheshur Nath

Religious and Charitable Trust plaintiff no.2 vide the Trust Deed
dated 26.03.1985 and is the sole owner of the various properties of
the said trust, more particularly the suit property. The property in
question stands mutated in the records of the M.C.D. in the name of
the plaintiff.

15.

That Shri Harish Chander Shastri who was working as the sewadar of
the Temple expired on 02.02.1984. After his death, his son Shri Vinay
Chand Sharma approached the plaintiff Trust for his appointment as a
sewadar of the Temple vide letter dated 30.03.1984.

The plaintiff

Trust through its sole trustee Shri Prakash Nath Segal had accepted
the said request of Shri Vinay Chand Sharma and had appointed him
as Sewadar of the aforesaid private Temple vide appointment letter
dated 31.03.1984. Since then he was acting as sewadar to look after
the premises and also perform pooja in the said Temple for and on
behalf of the Plaintiff Trust. For the above duties he was provided free
electricity, water and permission to reside in the said premises with his
family. For his cash requirement he used to receive remuneration
from the neighbourhood for whom he used to perform religious pooja
at their various functions.

16.

That the said Temple and the property was/is being controlled and
managed by the plaintiff herein, who is meeting all the expenses
including the water and electricity bills, house tax, repairs and
renovations and other expenses incurred for celebrating various
festivals such as Janmashtmi, Shivratri, etc. etc.

17.

That the aforesaid residential portion of the said property attached to

the Temple was permitted to be occupied by the said sewadar Shri
Vinay Chand Sharma and family by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the said
Sewadar Shri Vinay Chand Sharma was using and occupying the said
residential portion of the property which was allowed to him as a
facility for his services/duties. The said permission to use was coterminus with the period of his services. The defendants are the family
members of the said Shri Vinay Chand Sharma who were occupying
the aforesaid residential portion along with Shri Vinay Chand Sharma.
These defendants have got no independent right in law to occupy the
said premises.

18.

That the services of Shri Vinay Chand Sharma as sewadar of the

Temple continued till his death on 13.10.2010. He had left behind the
defendants as his legal heirs, in as much as, the defendant no.1 is the
widow, defendant nos.2 and 3 are the sons and defendant no.4 is the
daughter of the aforesaid Shri Vinay Chand Sharma.

19.

That the said property being an old property was in dilapidated

condition till the year 2006. The plaintiff herein on 07.12.2006 made a
written communication to the Municipal Authorities and the Police
Authorities, thereby informing the proposed repairs.

20.

That for the purposes of carrying out the repairs the plaintiff had
required the said Shri Vinay Chand Sharma to vacate the said portion
for the time being as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed
herewith. There was some half-hearted protest by Shri Vinay Chand

Sharma in vacating the premises, which led to interference of the

Police.

21.

That ultimately the said Shri Vinay Chand Sharma made a statement
in writing under his signatures to the Police on 06.01.2007 thereby
stating as under:-

I reside along with my family on the above said house which

also comprises a Shiv Temple. Earlier my father was an
employee of the same and now I am the sewadar of the same.
If Trust wishes to replace the ceiling of the Temple, I have got
no objection because the ceiling is in dilapidated condition and
can fall down at any point of time. My father worked for the
said Temple for 60 years approximate. After him the Trust
gave the responsibilities to me. If the Trust replaces the ceiling
or cause any other repair, I have got no objection.
Sd/Vinay Chander
Attested by Head Constable Pratap Singh
No.483/N
P.S. Lahori Gate.
06.01.2007.

22.

That thereafter, the various repairs and renovations were carried out
by the plaintiffs in the said Temple during the period January, 2007 till
July, 2008 under the supervision of said Shri Vinay Chand Sharma.
The plaintiffs also paid certain amounts to Shri Vinay Chand Sharma
from time to time for carrying out the day to day petty expenses on
repairs and renovations on behalf of the plaintiffs. All expenses were,
however, incurred by the plaintiffs directly. After the completion of the
repairs the said Shri Vinay Chand Sharma gave the accounts of the
same to the plaintiff and received the balance amount.

23.

That as detailed herein above the said Shri Vinay Chand Sharma
expired in October, 2010 thereby leaving behind the defendants as his
legal representatives.

24.

That the permission to use and occupy the residential portion of the
property and the Temple which was given by the plaintiff to said Shri
Vinay Chand Sharma stood automatically determined and terminated
with the death of Shri Vinay Chand Sharma. No such permission to
continue to occupy the suit premises was given by the plaintiff to any
of the defendants at any point of time. However, after the death of
Shri Vinay Chand Sharma, the defendants continued to occupy the
residential portion and are still occupying the same illegally without
any authority or permission of the plaintiff.

25.

That in these facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff issued
a communication dated 14.01.2011 to the defendants thereby calling
upon them to vacate the aforesaid property within a period of 60 days.
The said notice was sent by Speed Post. The same was duly served
upon the defendants. However, the defendants failed to reply to the
said notice. The plaintiff has been advised to state that by not replying
the said communication the defendants have admitted the contents of
the same.

26.

That after the receipt of the aforesaid communication dated

14.01.2011 the defendants No.2 and 3 approached the plaintiff and
requested to employ them as sewadar of the Temple and to allow
them to serve the Temple as their father was doing. The said request
was, however, not accepted and rejected by the plaintiff.

27.

That the plaintiff again vide communication dated 17.05.2011

requested the defendants to vacate the premises in next 60 days and

hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. The said
communication was sent by registered A.D. Post from Kalkaji Post
Office. The said notice has been duly served upon the defendants.
However, these defendants failed to reply the said notice as well.
Plaintiff has been advised to state that by not replying the same they
have admitted the contents of the same.

28.

That after the receipt of the communication dated 17.05.2011 the

defendant no.3 Shri Sumit Sharma again approached the plaintiff no.1
and had made a written application dated 06.07.2011 under his
signatures along with a copy of the Death Certificate of Shri Vinay
Chand Sharma for appointment as Sewadar. The said application of
defendant no.3 was not considered by the plaintiff. It was rejected vide
communication dated 16.08.2011 which communication was also
served upon all the defendants.

29.

That in view of the non-compliance of the aforesaid two notices dated

14.01.2011 and 17.05.2011 by the defendants as submitted herein
above the plaintiffs have now become entitled to file the present suit
against the defendants.

30.

That the Plaintiffs also got issued and served upon the Defendants a
reminder dated 07.06.2013 but of no avail.

31.

That the use and occupation of the defendants in the suit premises
particularly after 16.08.2011 is totally illegal and unauthorized and is
that of a rank trespasser. They have got no right to continue to occupy
the suit premises and are liable to vacate and hand over the vacant
and peaceful physical possession of the same to the plaintiff.

32.

That the defendants, jointly and severally, are also liable to pay the
use and occupation charges to the plaintiff at-least after 16.08.2011 till
the date of their actual vacation and handing over the same to the
plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that if the suit premises are let out in the
open market they can easily fetch an amount of Rs.15,000/- per
month as rent at present.

33.

That the cause of action for filing the present suit has arisen on
16.07.2011 when the time period granted in the notice dated
17.05.2011 has expired but the defendants failed and neglected to
vacate and handover the suit premises to the plaintiff. The cause of
action has further arisen on 16.07.2011 when the defendants became
liable to pay use and occupation charges of the premises for their
unauthorized and illegal occupation.

The cause of action is still

subsisting and continuing.

34.

That the premises in suit are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Honble Court. The defendants are residing and working for their
gains within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court. The cause of action
has also arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honble Court.
As such this Honble Court has got jurisdiction to try and entertain the
present suit.

35.

That the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fees and
jurisdiction, for the relief of possession is fixed at Rs.50 Lacs, upon
which, the court fees of Rs. 2 Lacs has been paid. For the relief of
Mesne Profits, the same is fixed at Rs.15,000/-, upon which court fees

of Rs.1,000/- has been paid. The plaintiff undertakes to pay further

court fees on the amount of mesne profits as and when granted by
this Honble Court after making enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC.

PRAYER
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to:-

(a)

pass a Decree of Possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendants in respect of the suit premises being the property No.322,
Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 as specifically
shown in colour red in the site plan;

(b)

pass a preliminary decree of Mesne Profits thereby holding that the

plaintiff is entitled and the defendants, jointly and severally, are liable
to pay the damages for the unauthorized use and occupation in the
premises.

(c)

appoint a Local commissioner with the direction to make enquiries

under Order 20 Rule 10 C.P.C. for determination of the quantum of
Mesne Profits to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.

(d)

pass a final decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant
thereby directing the defendants to pay the use and occupation
charges /damage so determined by this Honble Court after holding an
enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC;

(e)

award costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants;

(f)

pass such other or further order which this Honble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants.

PLAINTIFFS
DELHI
DATED:
THROUGH:
(NARESH GUPTA) (ANKIT JAIN)
ADVOCATES
A-26, LGF, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi-110014
Tel: 9717728017,
Email: ngequity@gmail.com

VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this ___ day of October, 2013 that the contents of Paras
No.1 to ___ of the plaint are true and correct to my knowledge and those of
paras ___ to ___ of the plaint are true and correct on the legal information
received and believed to be true. Last para is prayer to this Honble Court.

PLAINTIFFS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.S.(OS) NO. ____ OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

SHRI SUMER SEGAL (S. SEGAL) & ANR.

PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

SMT. RAJ RANI SHARMA & ORS.

DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT
I, Sumer Segal (S. Segal), S/o Late Shri Satgur Nath Segal, aged about 70
years, at 59B, Pocket-A, SFS DDA, Mayur Vihar-III, New Delhi-110096, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1.

That I am the plaintiff No.1 in the above noted case and being well
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
competent to swear this affidavit.

2.

That the accompanying plaint has been drafted by my counsel under

my instructions. I have gone through the contents of the same and I
say that the same are true and correct to my knowledge. The same
may be read as part and parcel of the present affidavit.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this

th day of October, 2013 that the contents of my

above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.S.(OS) NO. ____ OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

SHRI SUMER SEGAL (S. SEGAL) & ANR.

PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

SMT. RAJ RANI SHARMA & ORS.

DEFENDANTS

LIST
OF
DOCUMENTS
ALONG
WITH
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS.

S.NO. PARTICULARS

PAGE NO.

1.

Site Plan.

2.

Copy of Trust Deed dated 13.01.1950.

3.

Copy of Trust Deed dated 26.03.1985.

4.

Original letter of request by Sh. Vinay Chand

Sharma dated 30.03.1984.

5.

Carbon copy of appointment letter dated

31.03.1984, duly acknowledged in original by
Sh. Vinay Chand Sharma.

6.

True copy of the statement of Sh. Vinay Chand

Sharma recorded before the police authority on
06.01.2007.

7.

Original letter written by Sh. Vinay Chand

Sharma.

8.

Office copy
14.01.2011.

9.

Office copy of the communication dated

17.05.2011 along with original postal receipts.

10.

Original request letter dated 06.07.2011.

11.

Office copy of the communication dated

16.08.2011 along with original postal receipts.

of

THE

the

communication

dated

12.

Office copy of the communication dated

07.06.2013 along with original postal receipts.

13.

Various expense-vouchers.

14.

Bank statement of the Plaintiffs.

PLAINTIFFS
NEW DELHI
DATE:

THROUGH
(NARESH GUPTA) (ANKIT JAIN)
ADVOCATES
A-26, LGF, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi-110014
Tel: 9717728017,
Email: ngequity@gmail.com

LIST OF DATES & EVENTS

29.08.1929

Diwan Bahadur Bisheshur Nath executed his Will. In the said

Will he made a Trust and created a fund for religious and
charitable purposes. He appointed his second son RAI
BAHADUR Dr. Brij Nath to be the Trustee/ Manager of the said
Trust.

1930

Diwan Bahadur Bisheshur Nath Segal died.

13.01.1950

The aforesaid RAI BAHADUR Dr. Brij Nath who had managed
the said Trust as per the direction of the founder, handed over
the administration and management of the said Trust to his son
Shri Prem Nath Segal by means of a Deed of Trust dated
13.01.1950. In the said Deed of Trust Shri Prem Nath Segal
was inter-alia invested with the power to appoint another male
member from among the descendants of Dr. Baij Nath.

24.05.1951

Shri Prem Nath Segal executed a Deed in exercise of powers

conferred on him vide Trust Deed dated 13.01.1950 thereby
nominating his eldest son Shri Prakash Nath Segal as his
successor to the office of the Trustee after his death.

05.10.1970

Shri Prem Nath Segal died. Shri Prakash Nath Segal assumed
charge of Diwan Bahadur Bisheshur Nath Religious and
Charitable Trust as a Trustee.

26.03.1985

A Trust Deed is executed between Shri Prakash Nath Segal

S/o Late Shri Prem Nath Segal and Shri Sunil Chand Segal S/o
Late Shri Satgur Nath Segal. By means of the said document
Shri Prakash Nath Segal has appointed Shri Sumer Segal as
Trustee. Since then Shri Sumer Segal is acting as the Sole
Trustee of the aforesaid Trust.
The said trust inter-alia has a property bearing No.322, Kucha
Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, wherein a temple with the
name of Visheshwar Mahadev Temple is in existence. The
said Temple is being managed and controlled from the funds of
the said Trust by Shri Sumer Segal.
There is a domestic electricity connection in the said property
installed by BSES in the name of Shri Sumer Segal. The said
electricity bills are being paid by the said Trust by means of
cheque. The last advance payment was made of Rs.20,000/on 08.06.2010. The latest bill dated 24.05.2011 shows that
there is a credit balance to the credit of the said trust
amounting to Rs.5066.57.
There is a water connection installed in the said premises in
the name of Shri Sumer Segal. The water bills are being
deposited by said Trust by cheque. As per the last bill dated
13.06.2011 there is a credit balance of Rs.893/- in the said Bill.
The said Trust is filing its income tax returns under the
signatures of Shri Sumer Segal. The account of the said Trust

are being audited by M.C. Jain & Co. Chartered Accountant.

There was a Pujari with the name of Vinay Chand Sharma S/o
Pt. Harish Shastri employed by the said Trust to look after the
aforesaid Temple. This Vinay Chand Sharma along with his
family was residing in the rooms forming part of the said
Temple which were given to him by the said Trust for purely on
permissive basis for discharging his duties as Pujari. The said
permission to occupy the rooms was for a period co-terminus
to his services.
08.04.2003

The property No.322, Kucha Ghasi Ram, was mutated in

favour of Shri Sumer Segal.

January,
2007

As the residential portion of the said Temple was in dilapidated

condition, the Trust through Shri Sumer Segal made efforts to
renovate its ceiling and to cause other repairs. At that point of
time Mr. Vinay Chand Sharma was required to vacate the
portions under his use and occupation. He made a protest to
Mr. Sumer Segal which led to the involvement of the Police,
however, before the Police Authorities the said Mr. Vinay
Chand Sharma agreed for the repairs and renovations. He
also vacated the portion which was renovated by the Trust
during the period 2007-08. Various amounts through cheques
were incurred by the Trust. The said Shri Vinay Chand
Sharma supervised the said repairs and construction for and
on behalf of the Trust under the instructions and directions of
Mr.Sumer Segal. He was also given various amounts by Shri
Sumer Segal for spending on the repairs. Finally on 3rd July,
2008 he rendered the final accounts after completion of the
repairs. As his services were continuing he was allowed to
occupy the renovated portion.

October,
2010.

That the said Shri Vinay Chand Sharma unfortunately expired

in October, 2010, thereby leaving behind his widow Smt. Raj
Rani Sharma, two sons Shri Amit Sharma and Shri Sumit
Sharma, and one daughter Megha Sharma. On his death, his
services and his licence to occupy the premises stood
terminated and determined. However, his legal heirs continued
to occupy the residential portion.

14.01.2011

The said Trust through its Sole Trustee got issued and served
upon the legal heirs of Shri Vinay Chand Sharma a notice
thereby requiring them to vacate the said property and hand
over the possession of the same within a period of 60 days.
The said notice was duly served upon them. However, they
failed and neglected to reply and comply the same.

17.05.2011

Again a notice of 60 days was given by the said Trust to the

legal heirs of Shri Vinay Chand Sharma, which has been duly
served. However, the premises has not been vacated by them.