Delhi District Court
House Courts: New Delhi vs Vijay Mehta on 7 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT SHARMA : ACJARCCCJ: PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI
SUIT NO. 60/13
Association of Apartment
Owners of New Delhi House(Regd.)
Through its President
Sh. H.M. Prabhakar,
New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Raod,
New Delhi110001. .....................Plaintiff
Versus
1.Vijay Mehta, Flat no. 201, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
2. K.J. Sanger, Flat No. 203, New Delhi House, 27, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi.
3. Ashok Mehta, Flat no. 204, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi110001.
4. Karan Bagga, Flat no. 501, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi110001.
5. Ramesh Sharma, Flat no. 502, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi110001.
6. Pawan Bansal, Flat no. 503, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi110001. ....................Defendants SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION.
Date of institution of suit : 01.02.2013
Date of hearing of final arguments : 07.06.2014
Date of final judgment : 07.06.2014
EXPARTE JUDGEMENT:
1. Plaintiff, H. M. Prabhakar, filed the present case, alleging that he is duly authorized person on behalf of the plaintiff association to file and pursue this case, on the basis of resolution Ex. PW1/1. He alleged that building New Delhi House, 27 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi has 14 flats and defendants are its owners. That the said building has common areas and facilities under the ownership of the respective flat owner as individual undivided interests proportionately. That common services of maintenance inside the flats and building are operated by an independent entity with the name of capital maintenance corporation since 1974 , which, in turn is maintaining the same, independently. That electrical shaft on second floor, in the said building is located in the common area and from there electricity supply to various flats is regulated. That the said electrical shaft is kept locked and its keys remain with capital maintenance corporation, for safety reasons. That defendant No 1, 2 & 3 have broken open the said electrical shaft and have put their own lock in the said shaft, making it inaccessible for the maintaining corporation. That, the said act of defendants No 1, 2 & 3 is illegal as it has put the electricity supply unchecked. That defendant no 4 & 5 have also put similar lock on the main entrance gate leading to electrical shaft and have also locked the entire electrical shaft. That the said act of defendant No 4 & 5 is illegal as it prohibits the movement of maintenance staff inside the electrical shaft which has led to a situation rare in the event of any electrical short circuit, maintenance staff will not be able to attend the problem, which may finally lead to serious consequences. Defendant No 4 & 5 have also put their two locks on the fire doors after encroaching upon the common area. The said defendants have no right to do so. Vide Judgement dated 28.05.2010, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has already declared that ownership of the entire building alongwith common areas now vest with plaintiff association. Despite various oral requests, defendants have not acceded to the request of removing their locks. In this regard various complaints viz. EX. PW1/2 to EX. PW1/5 were made to concerned authorities but of o avail and hence plaintiff has filed the present case of mandatory injunction, praying that defendants must be directed to remove their locks put by them on electrical shaft and, common area mentioned above. Further, prayer of holding defendants responsible for any mishap, incident inside the electrical shaft on the respective floors was also made. Plaintiff has also prayed that cost of this suit be given to him.
2. After filing of the suit, summons were issued to defendants. All the defendants were served.
3. Defendants had filed their written statement. In their written statement they had challenged the bonafide of plaintiff. They challenged the locus standi of plaintiff, in filing the present case. As per them, as per order of Hon'ble Delhi high Court, L&DO is the concerned department to maintain common area in the building in question. That new Executive Committee members of the building have removed plaintiff association being maintenance agency. That, plaintiff association is controlled by Ms Sunita Bhardwaj who can misuse the order in her favour. Further they disputed the fact that they had put their locks in the electrical shaft gates and in the common area.
4. At the stage of arguments on application under order 39 Rule 1 CPC, defendants were proceeded exparte. Plaintiff, at that stage, instead of arguing on the said application, proceeded with the matter and filed his evidence by way of affidavit EX. PW1/A, relying upon the documents, mentioned above and not repeated here for the sake of brevity. After examining himself, he closed the evidence and matter was fixed for judgement, after final arguments were heard.
5. Plaintiff in this case was able to place on record his authority to represent the association. He had asserted the existence of the association, which coupled authorization letter and other documents placed on records, proved that plaintiff association is functioning for the overall maintenance of the building in question. In that situation, putting locks in the electrical shafts and common areas, as alleged by plaintiff, will not only hamper the work of plaintiff association, but can also be hazardous to, various persons in the close proximity of the said locked area. Therefore, plaintiff had a cause of action in his favour and his unrebutted testimony, proved his case.
6. This suit was filed with in limitation, within proper jurisdiction and after affixing proper court fees.
7. The relief of holding defendants liable for any future mishappening inside the electrical shafts on the respective floors, where they were closed by the defendants, was not a proper relief to be claimed by plaintiff, as it is contrary to law. For future acts, which can or cannot happen, no person, can be held responsible. The said relief is negated by me.
8. There is no legal embargo in believing the case of plaintiff, with regard to rest of the relief, claimed by him, which remained unrebutted during trial.
9. This suit is accordingly decreed partially in favour of plaintiff and against defendants. Defendants are directed to remove their locks, put up by them on the electrical shaft and common area of the second floor and fifth floor of the building.
10. Application of plaintiff under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC needs no separate adjudication as the main suit is partially decreed in favour of plaintiff. The said application thus has become infructuous.
11. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court (PRASHANT SHARMA)
on 07.06.2014 ARC/ACJ/CCJ: New Delhi
Patiala House Courts/07.06.2014
S60/13
Association of Apartment Owners of New Delhi House Vs. Vijay Mehta & Ors. 07.06.2014 Present : Ms. Sunita Bhardwaj, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendants are exparte.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed partially in favour of plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Defendants are directed to remove their locks, put up by them on the electrical shaft and common area of the second floor and fifth floor of the building.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(PRASHANT SHARMA) ARC/ACJ/CCJ: New Delhi Patiala House Courts/07.06.2014