Delhi District Court
Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia vs Sh. Rajesh Sinha on 8 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA,
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE
COURT-CUM- GUARDIAN JUDGE,
DISTRICT: SOUTH, NEW DELHI.
MCA No. 04/12
UNIQUE ID NO.02406C0039912012
SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOGIA
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal Gogia,
R/o First Floor, D-111, Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi - 110017.
................Plaintiff.
Vs.
1. Sh. Rajesh Sinha,
S/o Late Sh. R.N. Sinha.
R/o Second Floor, D-111, Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi-110017.
2. Mrs. Pamela Srivastava,
S/o Sh. Ajai Srivastava.
R/o Second Floor, D-111, Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi-110017.
3. Sh. Sidharth Srivastava,
S/o Ajai Srivastava,
R/o Second Floor, D-111, Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi-110017.
4. Sh. Ajay Srivastava,
S/o not known.
R/o Second Floor, D-111, Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi-110017.
MCA No. 04/12 Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia Vs. Rajesh Sinha & Ors. Page No. 1 of 11
5. Mr. Sanjay Choudhri,
S/o Not known.
R/o Second Floor, D-111, Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi-110017.
6. Mrs. Ritika Chaudhri,
W/o Sh. Sanjay Choudhri
R/o Second Floor, D-111, Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi-110017.
.............Defendants.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 18.02.2012
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 04.07.2014
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.08.2014
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC on behalf of Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia (hereinafter called the Appellant) against the Sh. Rajesh Sinha (hereinafter called the Respondent No.1), Mrs. Pamela Srivastava (hereinafter called the Respondent No.2), Sh. Sidharth Srivastava (hereinafter called the Respondent No.3), Sh. Ajay Srivastava (hereinafter called the Respondent No.4), Mr. Sanjay Choudhri (hereinafter called the Respondent No.5) and Mrs. Ritika Chaudhari (hereinafter called the Respondent No.6), filed against Order dated 11.01.2012 passed by Ms. Neha, Civil Judge, Saket Court.
Brief facts enumerated in the appeal are as follows:
MCA No. 04/12 Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia Vs. Rajesh Sinha & Ors. Page No. 2 of 11
1. It is stated in the appeal as facts presented in the plaint that the appellant/plaintiff purchased the first floor of the property bearing No.D-111, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi in the year 2001 for the purpose of residential use for himself and for his family members. It is further averred that the second floor of the said property bearing No.D-111, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi stands occupied by the respondents/defendants who also have ownership over half rear portion of the Ground Floor and half rear portion of the Third Floor of the said premise.
2. It is further averred that the respondents/defendants have picked up quarrel on numerous occasions without any pretext creating problems for the appellant/plaintiff and other occupants of the property also by filing false and frivolous and incorrect complaints with the police officials, sometimes even having effect on the supply of essential facilities meant to be used by owners of the property in question.
3. It is further averred that the respondents/defendants deputed security personnel in the month of October/November 2010 during the pendency of the present suit who are the cause of nuisance to the appellant as well as the other occupants of the property in question.
MCA No. 04/12 Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia Vs. Rajesh Sinha & Ors. Page No. 3 of 11
4. It is further averred that the respondents/defendants installed cameras without prior consent of the appellant/plaintiff and other occupants of the property in the month of April 2011 which has invaded the privacy of the appellant/plaintiff and his family members. It is further averred that those cameras have been installed only to keep a tab on the appellant/plaintiff as well as the visitors/guests of the appellant/plaintiff and to capture all the movements of the appellant/plaintiff as well as other visitors. It is further averred that one camera has been installed in the garage captured every movement right from the main gate upto the main entrance to the stairs to the house of the appellant/plaintiff, the second camera to capture the activities on the entrance and the third camera installed at the front side in the balcony.
5. It is further averred that the installation of the cameras has been mischievously and motivatedly done with ulterior motives only to cause further harassment to the appellant/plaintiff and his family members which compelled appellant/plaintiff to file suit in the Court. It is further averred that during the pendency of the suit, two more cameras later were installed in the property.
MCA No. 04/12 Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia Vs. Rajesh Sinha & Ors. Page No. 4 of 11
6. The Ld. Trial Court allowed the application of the appellant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC to the extent restraining the respondents/defendants from intercepting/ interfering in questioning the appellant/plaintiff, his family members or the visitors coming to the suit property. However, the request of restraint upon installation of cameras has been declined. It is against this part of Order dated 11.01.2012 passed by the Ld. Trial Court that the present appeal has been filed.
7. It is submitted as ground of appeal that the respondents/ defendants have not given cogent reason for installment of cameras in the WS filed by the respondents/defendants, which are being used to invade the privacy of the appellant/plaintiff and his family members. It is further submitted that the respondents/ defendants admittedly are in the exclusive ownership of the property and thus, could not install any such camera without permission of other occupants of the property in question. It is further submitted that the cameras installed keep the appellant/plaintiff, his family members and the guests under constant surveillance with each activity being supervised by the respondents/defendants. It is further submitted that even MCA No. 04/12 Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia Vs. Rajesh Sinha & Ors. Page No. 5 of 11 while suit was pending before the Court, the respondents/defendants installed two more cameras to further harass the appellant/ plaintiff, his family members and guests.
8. It is thus prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the submission under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC in respect of installation of cameras in the property in question be allowed.
9. Written arguments on behalf of appellant/plaintiff have been filed. Arguments qua the appeal have been advanced by counsel for the respondents/defendants. The counter contentions have been considered. Case record perused carefully.
10. Present appeal is directed against the Order dated 11.01.2012 passed by Ld. Civil Judge Saket only in respect of the relief relating to installation of the cameras by the respondents/defendants without prior consent of the appellant/ plaintiff in different parts of the property.
11. It is admitted that the appellant/plaintiff reside on the first floor of the property whereas the respondents/ MCA No. 04/12 Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia Vs. Rajesh Sinha & Ors. Page No. 6 of 11 defendants reside at the second floor also having ownership rights over the half rear portion of the ground floor as well as the third floor. The cameras have been admittedly installed in various portions of the property which are enumerated as under:
A. In the garage capturing movement from the main gate to the main entrance, to the main entrance to the stairs to the house of appellant.
B. Installed to capture activities at the entrance of the main door.
C. At the front side of balcony of the second floor. D. Yet another in the front side of balcony of second floor. (Installed during pendency of this case)
12. It is contended by the appellant/plaintiff that the cameras have been installed without the permission of the appellant/ plaintiff, completely invading the privacy of the appellant/plaintiff and his family members to keep tap on their movements in order to harass them. It is further contended that the reasoning applied by the Ld. Trial Court in granting the relief qua the deployment of security staff in the premises by the respondents/defendants must by way of analogy be applied to the relief qua the installation of cameras as well.
MCA No. 04/12 Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia Vs. Rajesh Sinha & Ors. Page No. 7 of 11
13. There is no dispute as such qua the ownership or the possession of respective portion of the property by appellant/plaintiff and respondents/defendants respectively.
It can also be clearly inferred that the cameras have been installed only in the common usage portion of the appellant/plaintiff and respondents/defendants or in the private space of respondents/ defendants. The problem appears to be not of the installation but of the range/vision of the said cameras so as to attack upon the privacy of the appellant/plaintiff and his family. Same is evident from the letter dated 11.04.2011 addressed to the respondents/ defendants by the plaintiff. The reason for installation of the cameras was replied about in the letter dated 18.04.2011 addressed to the appellant/plaintiff by one of the respondents/defendant as in the cameras have been installed in the private property of respondents/defendants and for the purpose of their security.
14. I have perused the photographs which have been filed on behalf of appellant/plaintiff supporting the contentions made by him. Property admittedly has a common main entrance to the first as well as second floor.
MCA No. 04/12 Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia Vs. Rajesh Sinha & Ors. Page No. 8 of 11
15. The grievance of the appellant/plaintiff to the extent that the cameras have been installed without his consent is understandable. The cameras installed at the main entrance to capture the activities there without posing any hindrance to the activity or movement of any person to and from the property do not appear to be an invasion on the privacy of the appellant/ plaintiff as such considering that the cameras have been installed in a common area and thus, the same is bound to benefit the appellant/plaintiff as well as it capture the movements at the entrance which is common to first floor as well as the second floor.
16. The view becomes different when it comes to the vision or range of the camera installed in the balcony of the second floor. The photographs do give an impression that the activity on the first floor also fall within the range of those cameras. It can be seen that the balcony of the first floor is a little extended and thus the person doing any activity on the said balcony which is otherwise the personal space of the appellant/plaintiff and his family is going to fall in range of those cameras installed in the balcony which may be seriously objectionable as an intrusion into the privacy of the appellant/plaintiff as well as his family members. The balcony of any respective floor is otherwise a private space MCA No. 04/12 Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia Vs. Rajesh Sinha & Ors. Page No. 9 of 11 as part of that particular floor and cannot be shared without consent of the inhabitants of that floor with any other person even in the name of security. The balance has to be drawn between the rights and the duties of the respective floor owners qua their co-habitation in a particular premises. Any absolute right cannot be granted in favour of one and against the another. Ld. Trial Court already has mentioned about certain judgment in her Order citing that the relief by way of mandatory injunction can also be granted at an interlocutory stage if the facts and circumstances do warrant those directions. Those judgments have been relied upon by the counsel in the present appeal as well. Considering the discussion made above it is held that the installation of two cameras in the balcony of the second floor do invade in the privacy of the appellant/plaintiff and his family members without their having any say in the issue and cannot be so allowed even in the name of security violating the right of privacy of one in favour of another. As far as the installation of other two cameras at the entrance/main gate are concerned, those are installed in the common areas and thus are not in any private location capturing the movement of the appellant/plaintiff or his family members and can be stated to be an aid for security not only for the respondents/defendants but for the appellant/plaintiff as well MCA No. 04/12 Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia Vs. Rajesh Sinha & Ors. Page No. 10 of 11 as his family members. The appeal accordingly is partly allowed to the extent that the respondents/defendants are directed to remove the cameras installed in the balcony of the second within four weeks of the date of this order. Ld. Trial Court directed to ensure compliance of direction noted herein. Remaining contention of grant of relief qua two cameras installed at the common entrance/common gate/garage is dismissed in view of above noted discussion. The Order dated 11.01.2012 passed by Ms. Neha, Civil Judge, Saket Court stands modified in the forum and extent as directed herein above. Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. Let TCR be sent to Trial Court with copy of this Order. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on 08.08.2014 (Shelly Arora) JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
MCA No. 04/12 Sh. Virender Kumar Gogia Vs. Rajesh Sinha & Ors. Page No. 11 of 11