Draft Case

Facts: Sudipto Banerjee has been living in a rented first floor with his two friends
Srinath and Ravi Majumdar in Mukherji Nagar for Rs. 8000 per month for the past
two years preparing for various competitive exams. There is no written rent
agreement. The landlord Sh. P.K Jain who lives on the ground floor wanted higher
rent which Sudipto and his friends were not willing to pay. The landlord has filed a
suit for possession without any prior notice claiming that the boys are paying guests.
Sudipto has shown you monthly receipts for Rs. 8000/- for the past years, MTNL
fixed line bills in his name, installation receipt of dish antenna on the first floor in his
name, receipts for electricity bills paid by him for the first-floor meter (meter in the
name of landlord). Sudipto and his friends are constantly being harassed by the
landlord, who deliberately locks the outer gate, when the boys are at coaching. He
has also tampered with the water tank on the terrace making the boys’ life miserable.
They are constantly threatened that he will throw their belongings on the road. Draft
an appropriate response to the suit on behalf of Sudipto and his friends along with a
suitable remedy against the harassment.
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SHRIVASTAVA, LD. CIVIL JUDGE, ROHINI
DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Case No.: 251/2021
In the matter of:
SHRI P.K. JAIN …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SHRI SUDIPTO BANERJEE AND OTHERS …DEFENDANTS
INDEX
S.No. Particulars Page No.
1. Written Statements on behalf of defendants replying to the

plaint filed by plaintiff for suit of possession.
2. Supporting Affadivit of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee
3. Supporting Affadivit of Mr. Srinath
4. Supporting Affadivit of Mr. Ravi Majumdar
5. Annexure D-1: Rent Receipt of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee
6. Annexure D-2: Electricity Bill of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee
7. Annexure D-3: MTNL Bill of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee
8. Annexure D-4: Installation receipt of TATA SKY
9. VAKALATNAMA
-2-
In the matter of:
VERSUS
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDENTS AGAINST THE PLAINT

FOR POSSESSION OF THE RENTED PREMISES FILED BY MR. P.K. JAIN
AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWITH:
1. It is submitted that Mr. Sudipto Banerjee (defendant no. 1), Mr. Srinath
(defendant no. 2) and Mr. Ravi Majumdar (defendant no. 3) collectively
addressed as “Defendants” are residing at first floor of A-42, XYZ colony,
Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter “rented premises”).
2. It is submitted that the defendants are residing at the rented premises from past
two years under the capacity of ‘tenants’/’lessee’. The monthly charge/rent paid
by the defendant to Mr. P.K. Jain (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is Rs. 8,000 per month.
There is no express/written agreement of the tenancy/lease.
3. It is submitted that the plaintiff has mischievously filed the suit for possession
before the Hon’ble Court without serving notice to the defendants for eviction and
the plaintiff has submitted that the defendants are residing under the capacity of
‘paying guest’ at the rented premises. The defendants specifically deny the said
-3-
facts submitted by the plaintiff before the Hon’ble Court. The submission of the
plaintiff is incorrect and based on fabricated facts.
3.1 It is the submitted that the rented premises are not governed under Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 as the amount of rent exceeds Rs.3,500.
Therefore, the relationship would be governed by Transfer of Property Act.
3.2 It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anthony v.
K.C. ITTOOP & Sons, (2000) 6 SCC 394, has held that a lease of
immovable property under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act
(hereinafter, “TP Act”) can be made expressly or by implication. The most
essential element for a lease to come into existence is creation of right in
the said immovable property. Once such right is created the lessor-lessee
relation will exist by implication under section 105 of the TP Act. It has also
been observed that section 107 of TP Act deals with different modes of
lease created wherein if the instrument is not created or registered, that
situation would be get covered under second para of the said section of
TP Act.
3.3 It is submitted that in Anthony v. K.C. ITTOOP & Sons (Supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court looked into the facts of the case and considered
following factors to create lease by implication under section 105 of TP
Act:
a. Possession of the rented/disputed premises.
b. Rent Receipts.
It was held that if these two factors are satisfied, then it would be incorrect
to say that there exist no jural relationship between lessor and lessee
under section 105 of the TP Act.
3.4 It is submitted that all the above-mentioned factors are satisfied in the
present facts and circumstance. The defendants have paid monthly rent to
the plaintiff and the rent receipts are annexed as Annexure D-1. The
defendant to prove the possession of the rented premises submits the
electricity bill paid by the defendants for the rented premises annexed as
Annexure D-2. The defendants also submit the MTNL fixed line bill for
proving the possession as Annexure D-3. The defendants also submit the
-4-
installation receipt of dish antenna on the first floor in their name as
Annexure D-3.
3.5 It is submitted that in the case of Park Street Properties v. Dipak Kumar
Singh, (2016) 9 SCC 268, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in
absence of registered instrument, the courts are not precluded from
determining the actual character of the relationship between tenant and
landlord from the other relevant evidences.
3.6 Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned judicial pronouncements and

factual position substantiated through annexures, it is submitted before the
Hon’ble Court that the defendants are residing at the rented premises as
tenants and not as paying guest. Henceforth the claim of the plaintiff fails
and is not liable to be admitted in the Hon’ble court.
4. It is submitted that plaintiff has filed the suit for possession without serving the
notice to the defendants required to be served mandatorily under section 106 of
the TP Act. Therefore, the suit of possession filed by the plaintiff against the
defendants is liable to be dismissed.
4.1 It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India

v. Babulal Agrawal, (2004) 2 SCC 712, has held that in absence of any
instrument of lease, the nature of the lease would be deemed monthly to
monthly basis for consideration under section 106 of TP Act.
4.2 It is submitted that in the case of Mangilal v. Sirgan Chand Rathi, (1964)
5 SCR 239, the Hon’ble SC has held that the monthly-to-monthly basis
lease can be terminated only by serving notice of fifteen days expiring
after the month end either by landlord or tenant under section 106 of the
TP Act. The notice is a pre-requisite for ending the landlord-tenant
relationship.
4.3 It is submitted that the Hon’ble SC in Satish Chandra Makhan v.

Goardan Das Byas, (1984) 1 SCC 369, has held that whenever the
duration of the lease is not determinable, it would be considered as
monthly-to-monthly basis lease and notice for fifteen days has to be
served mandatorily under section 106 for terminating the lease agreement,
-5-
otherwise the suit for possession would not be maintainable before the
court of law.
4.4 It is submitted that in the present facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has
failed to serve the notice under section 106 of the TP Act. No notice has
been received by the defendants in the current scenario.
4.5 Therefore, in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
considering default of not serving notice under section 106 of the TP Act, it
is submitted that the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff against
defendants shall be dismissed.
5. It is submitted that the defendants specifically deny all the averments made by
the plaintiff in his plaint against the defendants as false and fabricated suffering
from legal infirmity.
6. It is submitted that defendants reply to the prayer clause of the plaint filed by
plaintiff as objectionable, untenable and baseless. The prayer clause of the plaint
is specifically objected and denied by the defendants.
PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant the following
remedies to the Defendants:
1. Hold that the relationship between plaintiff and defendant is in the nature of
landlord and tenant.
2. Dismiss the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff.
OR
Pass any other order in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.
Prayed Accordingly
Defendant No. 1………………..

Date: 16-08-2021 Through Ms. Manisha Dubey
-6-
Place: New Delhi (Advocate on behalf of
Defendants)
Chamber No. 68, Block -B, Delhi HC Complex
High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.

In the matter of:
VERSUS
SHRI SUDIPTO BANERJEE AND OTHERS …DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sudipto Baneerjee, defendant no. 1, son of Sh. Sandeep Banerjee, aged about 22
years, resident of A-42, XYZ colony, Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi-110046, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That, I am well versed with the facts and circumstances of the case and as
such I am competent to depose the present Affidavit.
2. That, I have read and understood the contents of the accompanied written
submission/reply, which has been drafted by my counsel under my
instructions and say that the contents of the written submission/reply are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and the legal submissions
made therein are based on the advice received from the counsel who has
drafted this written submissions/reply under my instructions.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent hereinabove, do hereby verify and state that the contents of the Para
1 and 2 of the affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
-7-
No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from. Verified at
New Delhi on this 16 day of August 2019.
DEPONENT


In the matter of:
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Srinath, defendant no. 2, son of Sh. Harinath, aged about 23 years, resident of A-
42, XYZ colony, Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi-110046, do hereby solemnly affirm and
state as under:
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
-8-
DEPONENT


In the matter of:
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Ravi Majumdar, defendant no. 1, son of Sh. Sonu Majumdar, aged about 21 years,
resident of A-42, XYZ colony, Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi-110046, do hereby
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
-9-
DEPONENT
ANNEXURE D-1
-10-
ANNEXURE D-2
-11-
ANNEXURE D-3
-12-
ANNEXURE D-4
-13-

In the matter of:
VERSUS
VAKALATNAMA
KNOW ALL to whom these presents shall come that We Mr. Sudiptoo Banerjee,
Srinath and Mr. Ravi Majumdar the above named do hereby appoint:
(herein after called the advocate/s) to be my/our Advocate in the above noted case
authorise him:-
1. To act, appear and plead in the above-noted case in this Court or in any other
Court in which the same may be tried or heard and also in the appellate Court
including High Court subject to payment of fees separately for each Court by
me/us.
2. To sign, file, verify and present pleadings, appeals, cross-objections or

petitions for executions review revision, withdrawal, compromise or other
petitions or affidavits or other documents as may be deemed necessary or
proper for the prosecution of the said case in all its stages subject to payment
of fees for each stage.
3. To file and take back documents, to admit and/or deny the documents of
opposite party.
4. To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any

differences or disputes that may arise touching or in any manner relating to
the said case.
5. To take execution proceedings.
-14-
6. To deposit, draw and receive monthly cheques, cash and grant receipts
thereof and to do all other acts and things which may be necessary to be
done for the progress and in the course of the prosecution of the said case.
7. To appoint and instruct any other Legal Practitioner authorising him to

exercise the power and authority hereby conferred upon the Advocate
whenever he may think fit to do so and to sign the power of attorney on our
behalf.
8. And I/We the undersigned do hereby agree to rectify and confirm all acts done
by the Advocate or his substitute in the matter as my/our own acts, as if done
by me/us to all intents and proposes.
9. And I/We undertake that I/We or my/our duly authorised agent would appear
in Court on all hearings and will inform the Advocate for appearance when the
case is called.
10. And I/We the undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the advocate or his
substitute responsible for the result of the said case.
11. The adjournment costs whenever ordered by the Court shall be of the
Advocate which he shall receive and retain for himself.
12. And I/We the undersigned to hereby agree that in the event of the whole or
part of the fee agreed by me/us to be paid to the advocate remaining unpaid
he shall be entitled to withdraw from the prosecution of the said case until the
same is paid up. The fee settled is only for the above case and above Court.
I//we hereby agree that once fee is paid, I/We will not be entitled for the refund
of the same in any case whatsoever and if the case prolongs for more than 3
years the original fee shall be paid again by me/us.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I/We do hereunto set my/our hand to these presents the
contents of which have been understood by me/us on this 16 th day of August 2021
Accepted subject to the terms of the fees.
(Manisha Dubey) Mr. Sudipta Banerjee Mr. Srinath Mr. Ravi
-15-
Advocate Client Client Client

In the matter of:
SHRI SUDIPTO BANERJEE AND OTHERS …PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
SHRI P.K. JAIN …DEFENDANT
INDEX
S.No. Particulars Page No.
1. Written Statements on behalf of defendants replying to the

plaint filed by plaintiff for suit of possession.
2. Supporting Affadivit of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee
3. Supporting Affadivit of Mr. Srinath
4. Supporting Affadivit of Mr. Ravi Majumdar
5. Annexure D-1: Rent Receipt of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee
6. Annexure D-2: Electricity Bill of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee
7. Annexure D-3: MTNL Bill of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee
8. Annexure D-4: Installation receipt of TATA SKY
9. VAKALATNAMA
-16-
In the matter of:
VERSUS
SUIT FOR PROHIBITORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWITH:

1. That the plaintiff No. 1 is Mr. Sudiptoo Banerjee, Plaintiff No. 2 is Srinath and
Plaintiff No. 3 is Mr. Ravi Majumdar, collectively addressed as ‘plaintiffs’ are
permanent citizen of A-42, XYZ colony, Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi-110046
(hereinafter, “rented premise”) from past two years.
2. That the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the rented premises. There is no

express written agreement of the tenancy, however the nature of the relationship
between the plaintiff and defendant is of landlord/lessor and tenant/lessee as by
implication in law.
3. That the plaintiff is paying monthly charge/rent @ Rs. 8,000 per month. The rent
receipt issued by the defendant is annexed as Annexure P-1.
A. That the plaintiff is residing at rented premise as tenants.
4. That the rented premises are not governed under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as
the amount of rent exceeds Rs.3,500. Therefore, the relationship would be
governed by Transfer of Property Act.
-17-
5. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anthony v. K.C. ITTOOP &
Sons, (2000) 6 SCC 394, has held that a lease of immovable property under
section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter, “TP Act”) can be made
expressly or by implication. The most essential element for a lease to come into
existence is creation of right in the said immovable property. Once such right is
created the lessor-lessee relation will exist by implication under section 105 of the
TP Act. It has also been observed that section 107 of TP Act deals with different
modes of lease created wherein if the instrument is not created or registered, that
situation would be get covered under second para of the said section of TP Act.
6. That in Anthony v. K.C. ITTOOP & Sons (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
looked into the facts of the case and considered following factors to create lease
by implication under section 105 of TP Act:
1. Possession of the rented/disputed premises.
2. Rent Receipts.
That if these two factors are satisfied, then it would be incorrect to say that there
exist no jural relationship between lessor and lessee under section 105 of the TP
Act.
7. That all the above-mentioned factors are satisfied in the present facts and
circumstance. The defendant to prove the possession of the rented premises
submits the electricity bill paid by the defendants for the rented premises
annexed as Annexure P-2. The defendants also submit the MTNL fixed line bill
for proving the possession as Annexure P-3. The defendants also submit the
installation receipt of dish antenna on the first floor in their name as Annexure P-
4.
8. That in the case of Park Street Properties v. Dipak Kumar Singh, (2016) 9
SCC 268, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of registered
instrument, the courts are not precluded from determining the actual character of
the relationship between tenant and landlord from the other relevant evidences.
9. Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned judicial pronouncements and factual

position substantiated through annexures, it is submitted before the Hon’ble
Court that the plaintiffs are residing at the rented premises as tenants.
-18-
B. That the defendant is restraining plaintiff from peaceful possession of
their tenancy rights.
10. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Kallappa Setty v. M.V.
Lakshminarayana Rao, (1973) 2 SCC 358, has held that permanent injunction
under section 37(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, can be granted by the
Hon’ble Court if the plaintiff on the strength of his possession resist interference
from the person who have no better title than himself to the suit property.
11. That in the case of Bhagwanrao v. Ganpatrao, (1987) 3 Bom CR 258, the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that when the question of rightful
possession is not in consideration, then the relief of permanent injunction can be
granted by the Hon’ble Court, if the merit of the case is satisfying all the essential
ingredients of the grant of permanent injunction under Specific Relief Act.
12. In the present facts and circumstance, the defendant/landlord is causing trouble
and restraining plaintiff from his tenancy rights. Plaintiffs are constantly being
harassed by the defendant, who deliberately locks the outer gate, when the
plaintiffs are at coaching. Defendant is also tampering with the water tank on the
terrace making the plaintiffs life miserable. Plaintiffs are constantly threatened
that defendant will throw their belongings on the road.
13. Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned judicial pronouncements and facts &
circumstance, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may grant prohibitory and
perpetual injunction against the Defendant restraining him from harassing and
preventing the peaceful possession of tenancy’s rights of the plaintiffs.
C. That the plaintiff is forfeiting his claim of damages against the trespass by
landlord/defendant.
14. That the plaintiff is wilfully forfeiting his claim of damages against the
landlord/defendant, as the intention of the plaintiff is not to trouble the defendant
but to peacefully reside in the rented premise.
15. That the Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the matter as the rented premises is
situated at A-42, XYZ colony, Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi-110046, and the cause
of action has arisen under the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
16. The court fee of Rs. Payable by the plaintiff for the jurisdiction of the court is
paid on the value of the suit.
-19-
PRAYER
1. Grant prohibitory and perpetual injunction against the defendant
restraining him from harassing and preventing plaintiff from peaceful
possession of the tenancy rights.
OR
Pass any other order in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.
Prayed Accordingly
Plaintiff No. 1………………..

Date: 16-08-2021 Through Ms. Manisha Dubey

Place: New Delhi (Advocate on behalf of
Defendants)
Chamber No. 68, Block -B, Delhi HC Complex
High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
-20-

In the matter of:
SHRI SUDIPTO BANERJEE AND OTHERS …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sudipto Baneerjee, plaintiff no. 1, son of Sh. Sandeep Banerjee, aged about 22
years, resident of A-42, XYZ colony, Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi-110046, do hereby
2. That, I have read and understood the contents of the accompanied plaint,
which has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and say that the
contents of the plaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief, and the legal submissions made therein are based on the advice
received from the counsel who has drafted this plaint under my instructions.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
DEPONENT
-21-

In the matter of:
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Srinath, plaintiff no. 2, son of Sh. Harinath, aged about 23 years, resident of A-42,
XYZ colony, Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi-110046, do hereby solemnly affirm and
state as under:
2. That, I have read and understood the contents of the accompanied plaint,
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
DEPONENT
-22-

In the matter of:
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Ravi Majumdar, plaintiff no. 3, son of Sh. Sonu Majumdar, aged about 21 years,
resident of A-42, XYZ colony, Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi-110046, do hereby
2. That, I have read and understood the contents of the accompanied plaint
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
DEPONENT
-23-
ANNEXURE P-1
-24-
ANNEXURE P-2
-25-
ANNEXURE P-3
-26-
ANNEXURE P-4
-27-
In the matter of:
VERSUS
VAKALATNAMA
KNOW ALL to whom these presents shall come that We Mr. Sudiptoo Banerjee,
Srinath and Mr. Ravi Majumdar the above named do hereby appoint:
(herein after called the advocate/s) to be my/our Advocate in the above noted case
authorise him:-
1. To act, appear and plead in the above-noted case in this Court or in any other
Court in which the same may be tried or heard and also in the appellate Court
including High Court subject to payment of fees separately for each Court by
me/us.
2. To sign, file, verify and present pleadings, appeals, cross-objections or

petitions for executions review revision, withdrawal, compromise or other
petitions or affidavits or other documents as may be deemed necessary or
proper for the prosecution of the said case in all its stages subject to payment
of fees for each stage.
3. To file and take back documents, to admit and/or deny the documents of
opposite party.
4. To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any

differences or disputes that may arise touching or in any manner relating to
the said case.
5. To take execution proceedings.
-28-
6. To deposit, draw and receive monthly cheques, cash and grant receipts
thereof and to do all other acts and things which may be necessary to be
done for the progress and in the course of the prosecution of the said case.
7. To appoint and instruct any other Legal Practitioner authorising him to

exercise the power and authority hereby conferred upon the Advocate
whenever he may think fit to do so and to sign the power of attorney on our
behalf.
8. And I/We the undersigned do hereby agree to rectify and confirm all acts done
by the Advocate or his substitute in the matter as my/our own acts, as if done
by me/us to all intents and proposes.
9. And I/We undertake that I/We or my/our duly authorised agent would appear
in Court on all hearings and will inform the Advocate for appearance when the
case is called.
10. And I/We the undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the advocate or his
substitute responsible for the result of the said case.
11. The adjournment costs whenever ordered by the Court shall be of the
Advocate which he shall receive and retain for himself.
12. And I/We the undersigned to hereby agree that in the event of the whole or
part of the fee agreed by me/us to be paid to the advocate remaining unpaid
he shall be entitled to withdraw from the prosecution of the said case until the
same is paid up. The fee settled is only for the above case and above Court.
I//we hereby agree that once fee is paid, I/We will not be entitled for the refund
of the same in any case whatsoever and if the case prolongs for more than 3
years the original fee shall be paid again by me/us.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I/We do hereunto set my/our hand to these presents the
contents of which have been understood by me/us on this 16 th day of August 2021
Accepted subject to the terms of the fees.
(Manisha Dubey) Mr. Sudipta Banerjee Mr. Srinath Mr. Ravi
-29-
Advocate Client Client Client
-30-

Draft Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts: Sudipto Banerjee has been living in a rented first floor with his two friends

Civil Case No.: 251/2021

In the matter of:

SHRI P.K. JAIN …PLAINTIFF

SHRI SUDIPTO BANERJEE AND OTHERS …DEFENDANTS

S.No. Particulars Page No.

1. Written Statements on behalf of defendants replying to the

2. Supporting Affadivit of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee

3. Supporting Affadivit of Mr. Srinath

4. Supporting Affadivit of Mr. Ravi Majumdar

5. Annexure D-1: Rent Receipt of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee

6. Annexure D-2: Electricity Bill of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee

7. Annexure D-3: MTNL Bill of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee

8. Annexure D-4: Installation receipt of TATA SKY

Civil Case No.: 251/2021

In the matter of:

SHRI P.K. JAIN …PLAINTIFF

SHRI SUDIPTO BANERJEE AND OTHERS …DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDENTS AGAINST THE PLAINT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWITH:

a. Possession of the rented/disputed premises.

3.6 Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned judicial pronouncements and

4.1 It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India

4.3 It is submitted that the Hon’ble SC in Satish Chandra Makhan v.

2. Dismiss the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff.

Defendant No. 1………………..

Date: 16-08-2021 Through Ms. Manisha Dubey

Civil Case No.: 251/2021

SHRI P.K. JAIN …PLAINTIFF

SHRI SUDIPTO BANERJEE AND OTHERS …DEFENDANT

IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SHRIVASTAVA, LD. CIVIL JUDGE, ROHINI

Civil Case No.: 251/2021

SHRI P.K. JAIN …PLAINTIFF

SHRI SUDIPTO BANERJEE AND OTHERS …DEFENDANT

IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SHRIVASTAVA, LD. CIVIL JUDGE, ROHINI

Civil Case No.: 251/2021

SHRI P.K. JAIN …PLAINTIFF

SHRI SUDIPTO BANERJEE AND OTHERS …DEFENDANT

Civil Case No.: 251/2021

SHRI P.K. JAIN …PLAINTIFF

SHRI SUDIPTO BANERJEE AND OTHERS …DEFENDANTS

2. To sign, file, verify and present pleadings, appeals, cross-objections or

4. To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any

5. To take execution proceedings.

7. To appoint and instruct any other Legal Practitioner authorising him to

Accepted subject to the terms of the fees.

(Manisha Dubey) Mr. Sudipta Banerjee Mr. Srinath Mr. Ravi

IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SHRIVASTAVA, LD. CIVIL JUDGE, ROHINI

Civil Case No.: 298/2021

In the matter of:

SHRI SUDIPTO BANERJEE AND OTHERS …PLAINTIFFS

SHRI P.K. JAIN …DEFENDANT

S.No. Particulars Page No.

1. Written Statements on behalf of defendants replying to the

2. Supporting Affadivit of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee

3. Supporting Affadivit of Mr. Srinath

4. Supporting Affadivit of Mr. Ravi Majumdar

5. Annexure D-1: Rent Receipt of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee

6. Annexure D-2: Electricity Bill of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee

7. Annexure D-3: MTNL Bill of Mr. Sudipto Banerjee