Delhi District Court
Sh. Sada Nand Goel vs Sh. Sanskaran Surana on 13 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA: CIVIL JUDGE : 03
CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
Suit No. 104/14
Unique ID No. 024014C0083272014
1.Sh. Sada Nand Goel S/o Late Sh. Prithvi Chand Goel,
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel S/o Late Sh. Prithvi Chand Goel, Both resident of : 5334, Plot No. 2, West, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi110 006.
.......... Plaintiffs VERSUS Sh. Sanskaran Surana S/o Sh. Chandan Mal Sharma Flat No. 1, 2nd Floor, 5334, Plot No. 2West, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi 110 006 Resident of: House No. 52/65, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
.........Defendant
Suit no. 104/14 Sadanand Goel Vs. Sanskaran Surana 1/5
SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION
Date of institution : 18.02.2014
Date for reserving for orders : 18.10.2014 Date of decision : 13.11.2014 E X - P A R T E J U D G M E N T
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the defendant from making any structural changes, addition, alteration or replacing the roof and raising any construction of a room on the roof of the premises in the possession of the defendant and his brother as a tenant without obtaining sanction from MCD.
2. Briefly stated the facts as averred by the plaintiff in the plaint which are necessary for the disposal of the present are as follows: a. The defendant is a tenant under the plaintiffs in flat no. 1, second floor, 5334, plot no. 2, West, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi110 006 (herein afterward referred as suit property) along with his cousin brother Sh. Bimal Kumar Surana at the monthly rent of Rs. 470/ excluding water and electricity charges.
b. The defendant and Sh. Bimal Kumar Surana had locked the suit property for more than 6/7 years and have acquired vacant possession of residence in house no. 52/65, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Suit no. 104/14 Sadanand Goel Vs. Sanskaran Surana 2/5 New Delhi and they have also not tendered the rent w.e.f 01.04.2009 thus, the plaintiffs had terminated the tenancy of the defendant and his brother and filed an eviction petition against the defendant and Sh. Bimal Kumar Surana.
C. As per the terms and conditions of the tenancy, the defendant has only the right to use the roof of the suit property for the purpose of sleeping in summer season but, the defendant is now intending to renovate the entire suit property and also willing to replace the roof and make changes in the suit property. The defendant is also threatening to built an extra room on the roof which he is claiming to be the part of the tenanted portion.
D. The defendant has threatened the defendant on 16.02.2014 and has also apprised the plaintiffs that he has engaged a contractor for making the said changes and he has also got masons and laborers and building material for the purpose of construction and the defendant is intended to make it without obtaining any sanction from MCD.
3. The defendant has failed to appear and contest the suit of the plaintiff and consequently, he was proceeded exparte on 01.04.2014
4. The plaintiffs in support of their claim has examined plaintiff no. 2 as PW1 and PW1 has placed reliance on Rent Agreement Ex. PW1/1, Legal Notice Ex. PW1/2, Eviction Petition Ex. PW1/3, site plan Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5 i. e. is the translated copy of Ex.
Suit no. 104/14 Sadanand Goel Vs. Sanskaran Surana 3/5 PW1/1.
5. After conclusion of the evidence, Ld. counsel for the plaintiffs has addressed the final arguments and since the defendant has failed to appear and contest the suit of the plaintiff and further failed to cross examine PW1, therefore, the entire testimony of PW1 went unrebutted.
6. On careful perusal of Ex. PW1/5 i. e. translated copy of Ex. PW1/1 reveals that the defendant along with Sh. Bimal Kumar Surana has taken the suit property on rent from the plaintiffs and they were also given only the right of using the roof above the suit property for sleeping purposes during summer. Further, it was also mentioned in the said rent agreement that the defendant and his brother has no right to damage the suit property and no right to raise any construction contrary to the provisions of MCD. Further, as the defendant has failed to appear thus, he is deemed to have admitted that he is threatening the plaintiffs to make alteration/ additions in the suit property and that he is intending to add another room on the roof above the suit property without obtaining sanction from MCD without having any right to do the same as per Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/5. Consequently, being the landlord of the defendant, the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed.
RELIEF Suit no. 104/14 Sadanand Goel Vs. Sanskaran Surana 4/5
7. With aforesaid observations, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed and the defendant, his agents, representatives etc. are restrained from making any structural changes, addition, alteration or replacing the roof and raising any construction of a room on the roof above the suit property without obtaining sanction from MCD. No order as to cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance. Ahlmad to do the needful.
Announced in the open court today i. e. on 13.11.2014.
(SHAMA GUPTA) CIVIL JUDGE03C/THC DELHI /13.11.2014 Suit no. 104/14 Sadanand Goel Vs. Sanskaran Surana 5/5 CS No.104/14 Sadanand GoeL Vs. Sanskaran Surana 13.11.2014 Present: None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed and the defendant, his agents, representatives etc. are restrained from making any structural changes, addition, alteration or replacing the roof and raising any construction of a room on the roof above the suit property without obtaining sanction from MCD. No order as to cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance. Ahlmad to do the needful.
(SHAMA GUPTA) CIVIL JUDGE03C/THC DELHI /13.11.2014 Suit no. 104/14 Sadanand Goel Vs. Sanskaran Surana 6/5