Delhi District Court
Mohd.Mukeem Qureshi vs . Mst.Shahin Begum on 14 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS.RIYA GUHA :
CIVIL JUDGE13(CENTRAL) : DELHI
Suit No.86/2012
Mohd.Mukeem Qureshi Vs. Mst.Shahin Begum
Present : None
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff. Reply to the application filed by all the defendants. Parties have advanced arguments on the application.
2. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of premises no.9157, ground floor, Gali Zameer Wali, Mohalla Nawab Ganj, Azad Market, Delhi - 06 measuring 59.45 Sq.Mtrs and having roof rights in 29.73 Sq.Mtrs. The plaintiff has purchased the same from one Sh.Anil Chaudhary on 22.11.2010. It is submitted that the defendants are residing in the premises no.9154. It is further submitted that on the night of 23/24.04.2012, the defendants had broken the wall and removed two windows and had come on the roof of the plaintiff's premises. Accordingly, the plaintiff lodged a police complaint and had sent legal notices to the defendants. It is further submitted that the defendant's spread their cloths on the roof of the premises which is in ownership & occupation of the plaintiff and also throw dirt & filth in the stairs of the plaintiff which lead the passage of the plaintiff to the roof. Despite requests of the plaintiff, the defendants have not Mohd.Mukeem Qureshi Vs. Mst.Shahin Begum Suit No.86/2012 Page No.1 of 4 desisted from such activities, hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit and seeks the prayer in the injunction application for direction to the defendant to rebuilt the wall broken by them and installed windows therein and also restrict from spreading their cloths and throwing dirt on the premises of the plaintiff.
3. It is submitted on behalf of all the defendants that the suit property belongs to the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) and hence, the present suit suffers from the defect that the necessary party i.e. DUSIB has not been impleaded in the present suit. It is further submitted that the roof of the property is common and as per the records of the old documents, the roof is not in anybody's name. It is submitted that since long the roof has been commonly being used by the plaintiff as well as the defendants. It is denied that the defendants have broken any wall or window of the plaintiff's premises and it is asserted that the status of the property is the same since very long time. It is further submitted that since the property belongs to DUSIB, the Board had put up a notice that sale & purchase of such properties & construction therein is illegal. Hence, the defendants denied that the plaintiff have any right, title or interest in the suit property. It is further submitted that there are no stairs from the side of the plaintiff to approach the roof of the property, instead the stairs are existing in the side of the property of the defendants. Hence, there is no question of throwing dirt & filth on the stairs of the plaintiff.
4. Heard & perused the record.
Mohd.Mukeem Qureshi Vs. Mst.Shahin Begum Suit No.86/2012 Page No.2 of 4
5. In support of his case, the plaintiff has filed the salepurchase documents dt.22.11.2010 wherein the plaintiff had purchased the single storied property with roof rights bearing no.9157. On the other hand the defendants have filed a copy of list of properties which fall under DUSIB in ward no. 12, Nawab Ganj, Delhi. Also both the parties have filed photographs showing the stairs which are leading to the roof of the property.
6. It can be ascertained from the photographs as well as the documents of the plaintiff that the entire roof is not belonging to the plaintiff. In his plaint itself the plaintiff has submitted that the roof rights of only 29.73 Sq.Mtrs. belongs to the plaintiff. Hence, it can only be decided whether the roof is common or not after evidence is led by both the parties to prove their respective stands. Hence, the defendant's cannot be restrained from spreading their cloths or using the roof of the suit property. However, it is disputed by the defendant that the stairs leading to the roof fall on her side of the property. This also is a matter of evidence. However, as everybody is entitle to a clean environment, the Court thereby restrains the defendant as well as the plaintiff to throw filth or dirt on the stairs leading to the roof and which are more specifically shown in the site plan of the plaintiff.
7. Also the prayer sought by the plaintiff for direction to the defendant to rebuild the wall and window cannot be allowed at this stage as the plaintiff has to show that the defendant is responsible for the damages, if any, to the wall Mohd.Mukeem Qureshi Vs. Mst.Shahin Begum Suit No.86/2012 Page No.3 of 4 and the roof. Hence, with these observations, the injunction application is partly allowed inasmuch the parties are restrained from throwing dirt or filth on the stairs leading to the roof of the premises of the plaintiff. Application is disposed off accordingly.
Put up for admission/denial of documents as well as framing of issues on 12.09.2013.
Announced in the Open Court [RIYA GUHA]
Today on 14.08.2013 CIVIL JUDGE13(Central)
DELHI
Mohd.Mukeem Qureshi Vs. Mst.Shahin Begum Suit No.86/2012 Page No.4 of 4