Delhi District Court
Smt. Anju Rani vs Delhi Cantonment Board on 25 September, 2025
THE COURT OF MR. VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH
CIVIL JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI
CNR No. DLND030027452018
CS SCJ No. 381/2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
Anju Rani
W/o Late Sh. Roshan Lal
R/o 1/178, 1st Floor, Sadar Bazar
Delhi Cantt-110010
. . . Plaintiff
versus
Delhi Cantonment Board
Through its CEO
Delhi Cantt-110010
. . .Defendant
Date of Institution : 21.03.2018
Date of Reserving Judgment : 24.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 25.09.2025
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV PRATAP
PRATAP SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.09.25
16:24:30
+0530
CS SCJ 381/2018
Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 1 of 17
JUDGMENT
PLAINT
1. The present suit is filed against the Defendant, with the following prayers:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-
a) pass a decree and order of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant from stopping the plaintiff to carry out repair work in the suit property.
b) Pass such other further order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case"
2. For the sake of completion, it is noted that the prayer, as extracted above, was actually the amended prayer. Upon allowing the application by Plaintiff in this regard, by which application only the language of the prayer was modified and no other changes were made to the body of the plaint, the Learned Predecessor did not insist on an amended plaint being filed nor was the issue noticed till now by either side, till final arguments. Since the issues were also framed basis the amended prayer only, no prejudice has been caused to either side and parties have jointly requested that the trial proceed as is.
3. Brief facts as alleged by the Plaintiff in the Plaint are that the Plaintiff, widow of Late Sh. Roshan Lal, is the authorised occupant of H.NO-1/178, 1st floor, Sadar Digitally signed by VAIBHAV Bazaar, Delhi Cantt-110010, residing there with her son VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 16:24:35 CS SCJ 381/2018 +0530 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 2 of 17 and daughter for the past 45 years, and the premises was originally rented in the name of her father-in-law Late Sh. Balwant Ram.
4. That Late Sh. Balwant Ram died in 1939, her mother-in- law passed away in 2005, and her husband expired on 10.05.1991.
5. That the property falls under Class 'C' Land in Delhi Cantonment and is part of a civil notified bazaar area.
6. That the premises is over 70 years old, in dilapidated condition, and requires urgent repair, including replacing the cement slab terrace with RCC slab, as no repairs have been undertaken till date.
7. That during recent heavy rains the premises was flooded, leading to major cracks in walls and terrace, posing risk to the Plaintiff, her family, and the ground floor occupant.
8. That the Defendant, as landlord under the DRC Act, has not carried out any repairs in over 50 years, and though no structural changes are intended, the Plaintiff is being stopped from doing essential repairs.
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP
9. That similar buildings nearby have collapsed due to PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 16:24:40 +0530 CS SCJ 381/2018 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 3 of 17 departmental negligence and courts have previously allowed residents to carry out repairs.
10.That despite repeated requests and letters since 17.11.2017, the Defendant has taken no action, and when the Plaintiff tried repairing the structure, officials threatened and demanded bribe, stopping her illegally leaving no other remedy but to file this suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
11.Defendant filed a WS and took the stand that the Plaintiff's suit is not maintainable as the Plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts relevant to adjudication.
12.That property no. 1/178 is a Cantonment Fund Property situated on Class 'C' land under the management of the Defendant, and was allotted to Sh. Balwant Ram at Rs. 13.5/- monthly rent.
13.That after the death of Sh. Balwant Ram, the Plaintiff has remained in illegal possession and is a trespasser on government property.
14.That the Plaintiff constructed an unauthorized floor Digitally without obtaining sanction from the Defendant and signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 16:24:43 +0530 CS SCJ 381/2018 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 4 of 17 encroached on adjoining government land.
15.That commercial activity is being carried out in the residential property in violation of applicable rules and bye-laws.
16.That inspection reports dated 03.03.1997, 12.08.2000, and 21.05.2012 by the Defendant's Junior Engineer confirm unauthorized construction.
17.That complaints dated 16.08.2000 and 24.05.2012 were filed under Section 184 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and Section 247 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 respectively, wherein the Plaintiff pleaded guilty and was fined Rs. 4000/- by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts.
18.That preliminary notices dated 16.08.2000, 21.09.2000 and a final notice dated 24.05.2012 under Section 248 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 were issued, and the Plaintiff did not appeal, thus the order attained finality and the suit is barred under Section 250 of the Act.
19.That subsequent inspections on 27.06.2018 and 07.11.2020 confirmed unauthorized construction, encroachment, and good condition of the property except for some patches. Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 16:24:47 +0530 CS SCJ 381/2018 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 5 of 17
20.That the Plaintiff failed to comply with Section 80 CPC and Section 339 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 by not serving the mandatory two-month notice before filing the suit.
ISSUES
21.On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed on 23.03.2022, as follows:
21.1.Whether Plaintiff is entitled for a relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from stopping the Plaintiff to carry out repair work in the suit property as prayed for? OPP 21.2.Whether Plaintiff has any legal right over suit property bearing no.1/178, First Floor, Sadar Bazar?
OPD.
21.3.Whether present suit is barred under Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act? OPD 21.4.Whether Plaintiff has made unauthorised construction and has made encroachment in the suit property? OPD 21.5.Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE (PE)
22.The Plaintiff examined herself on affidavit as PW-1, and summoned two witness i.e. Mr. Mahender Kumar from TPDDL and one Pump Operator Mr. Raju from Revenue Branch of DCB as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. Following documents have been proved by the said witnesses:
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 16:24:50 +0530 CS SCJ 381/2018 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 6 of 17 Sl Exhibit/ Mark Documents No.
1. Mark A (de- Copy of rent receipt in the exhibited as Ex. name of Sh. Balwant Ram PW1/A)
2. Ex. PW-1/B ID proofs of me and my family (OSR) members showing their occupation in the suit property
3. Ex. PW-1/C Photographs (Colly.)
4. Ex. PW-1/D Letters to the Defendant.
5. Ex. PW-2/1 Certified copy of bills dated (Colly) 30.08.2012 and 13.08.2022 of CA No. 60002208944
6. Ex. PW-2/2 Bill dated 22.01.2024 of CA No. 60029972670 in the name of Ms. Anju Rani
7. Ex. PW-3/1 (OSR) Copy of rent register pertaining to property bearing no. 1/178, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-
110010
23.All witnesses were cross-examined by Learned Counsel for Defendant. There being no other witnesses, PE was closed.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE (DE)
24.Defendant examined Mr. Pawan Kumar Goel, Junior Engineer (Civil) as DW-1 and Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Junior Clerk, DCB as DW-2. Following documents have been proved by the said witnesses:
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 16:24:54 +0530 CS SCJ 381/2018 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 7 of 17 Sl Exhibit/ Mark Documents No.
1. Ex. DW1/1 (colly.) Photographs of suit property (at page no.5 to 9)
2. Ex. DW1/2 (colly.) Inspection report dated (at page no.10 and 07.11.2020
11)
3. Mark A (at page Inspection report dated no.12) 03.03.1997 on unauthorised construction
4. Mark B (at page Inspection report dated no.13) 12.08.2000
5. Mark C (at page Inspection report dated no.14) 21.05.2012
6. Mark D (at page Notice u/s 185 (1) dated no.15) 21.09.2000
7. Mark E (at page Notice u/s 248 (1) dated no.16) 24.05.2012
8. Mark F (at page Complaint dated 16.08.2000 no.17 and 18)
9. Mark G (at page Complaint dated 24.05.2012 no.19 and 20)
10. Mark H (page no. Inspection report dated
21) 27.06.2018
11. Ex. DW2/1 (OSR) Single page of rent register
25.All witnesses were cross-examined by the Learned Counsel for Plaintiff. There being no other witnesses, DE was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
26.Final arguments were then heard in detail. I have gone Digitally through the record with the assistance of counsel and I signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 16:24:57 +0530 CS SCJ 381/2018 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 8 of 17 have heard Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Mr. Nitish Dham, Learned Counsel for the Defendant.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT ISSUE NO. 2: WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS ANY LEGAL RIGHT OVER SUIT PROPERTY BEARING NO.1/178, FIRST FLOOR, SADAR BAZAR? OPD.
27.Issue No. 2 is taken up first.
28.As per the plaint, the Plaintiff is the widow of late Mr. Roshan Lal and is the "occupant" of the suit property, as it was rented out in the name of her father-in-law Late Mr. Balwant Ram. Her father-in-law (1939), mother-in-law (2005), and husband (10.05.1991) have all since expired.
29.During final arguments, both parties have jointly stated that since the title or rights of the Plaintiff in the suit property, if any, do not arise for determination in this suit as, arguably, even an occupier is entitled to carry out repairs, this issue does not arise for consideration.
30.I am inclined to agree. In the absence of pleadings claiming any other right or title in the suit property, this issue does not arise for consideration and is accordingly struck out under Order 14 Rule 5 (2) CPC. Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 16:25:01 +0530 CS SCJ 381/2018 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 9 of 17 ISSUE NO. 3: WHETHER PRESENT SUIT IS BARRED UNDER SECTION 41(H) OF SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT? OPD
31.Though in the issue framed it is not mentioned why the suit might be barred, the ground taken in paragraph 1(e) of the WS is that the suit is barred by Section 250 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 as the Plaintiff was given notices dated 16.08.2000 and 21.09.2000 under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 and also a notice dated 24.05.2012 under Section 248 of the Cantonments Act, 2005 for carrying out unauthorised construction and she has failed to file the statutory appeal against order dated 24.05.2012. The argument being that in view of a statutory remedy being available, the jurisdiction of this Court is barred.
32.Section 250 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 is as follows:
"250. Courts not to entertain proceedings in certain cases.
(1) After the commencement of this Act, no court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order or notice unless an appeal under section 340 is preferred and the same is disposed of by the appellate authority under sub- section (3) of section 343 of this Act. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), every suit, application or other proceedings pending in any court immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue to be dealt with and disposed of by that court as if the said section has not been brought into force."
33.From the prayer in the present suit, it is clear that the Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 CS SCJ 381/2018 16:25:05 +0530 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 10 of 17 Plaintiff is only seeking an injunction simplicitor to restrain the Defendants from interfering in her repair of the suit premises and no challenge is made to any order or notice that may have been issued to her. In fact, no such order or notice is even mentioned either in the plaint or in the replication.
34.Thus, the bar in Section 250 is not attracted and the suit at hand is not hit by it.
35.This issue is therefore decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
ISSUE NO. 4: WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS MADE UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION AND HAS MADE ENCROACHMENT IN THE SUIT PROPERTY? OPD
36.As noted above, the Plaintiff was served notices under Sections 185 and 248 of the Cantonments Act, 2006.
37.It is further averred in the WS that the Plaintiff illegally built a first floor above the suit premises in violation of the law and was criminally charged for it, to which she even pleaded guilty before the Learned Magistrate in Dwarka Courts.
38.In the replication filed by the Plaintiff, this fact is denied. In fact, every paragraph of the WS is simply denied Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 CS SCJ 381/2018 16:25:09 +0530 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 11 of 17 without stating anything further.
39.However, in her cross-examination as PW-1 on 11.05.2023, Plaintiff deposed that the premises were originally only a ground floor and that with time, two more floors have been constructed. She further deposed that no permission was taken from the Defendant for building the additional floors. She further deposed that commercial activity is being carried out from the suit premises without any license.
40.Plaintiff in her cross-examination also admitted to the fact that a criminal case was filed against her for unauthorized construction before Dwarka Courts, where she was fined though she did not remember the exact amount of fine paid.
41.Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the Plaintiff has carried out unauthorized construction in the suit property.
42.This issue is therefore decided in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR A RELIEF OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT FROM STOPPING THE PLAINTIFF TO CARRY OUT REPAIR WORK IN THE SUIT PROPERTY AS PRAYED FOR? OPP
43.This brings us back to the first issue framed as to whether Digitally the Plaintiff is entitled to the injunction sought. signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 16:25:13 +0530 CS SCJ 381/2018 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 12 of 17
44.In is trite that an injunction cannot be sought as a matter of right and that while in an equity jurisdiction, the Plaintiff's conduct must be above board. If the Plaintiff is found to have approached the Court with unclean hands, she is entitled to no relief at all.
45.In the case at hand, the Plaintiff not only concealed the fact of unauthorised construction in her plaint, she outrightly denied it in her replication. It is only in her cross- examination that she admitted the true facts, as already noted above.
46.There is another aspect to this. In her cross-examination as PW-1 on 11.05.2023, a specific question was put to her as to whether she has started any repair work in the suit property. In response, the Plaintiff admitted that she never started the repair work. Further, she admitted that no official of the Defendant came to stop her repair work as she never started the same. She further admitted that no official from the Defendant asked for any bribes either.
47.In para 8 of the plaint, however, the following averment is there:
"... That the recently when the plaintiff herself tried to repair and strengthen the structure on the same plinth, she was threatened and stopped by certain Digitally officials of the defendant in an illegal manner, who signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP were asking for bribe and also said that they would PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 16:25:17 +0530 CS SCJ 381/2018 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 13 of 17 not even let her repair the property if she does not accede to their demands. The plaintiff is being stopped from even carrying out repair work for which no sanction is required as per law."
48.This is completely at odds with her testimony given in Court during her cross-examination.
49.Plaintiff has herself argued that as per Section 235(1)(b) read with Section 235(2) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 and Clause 50 of the Delhi Cantonment (Building) Bye- Laws, 2002, the exercise sought to be carried out by the Plaintiff does not require any permission. DW-1 also stated as much in his cross-examination.
50.Thus once it is clear that no permission was required to repair and also that no one came to stop her nor asked for any bribes as she never even started the repair work, no cause of action arose at all. This Court is at a loss to understand why this suit has been filed at all if not for some ulterior purpose.
51.The concealments and contradictions of the Plaintiff regarding having illegally built two additional floors above the suit property, without any permission, go to the root of the matter in this case as she claims that her property needs repair lest the building may fall. The Plaintiff herself is guilty of illegally altering the property in a way which is Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH without sanction of the law and the safeguards that come SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 16:25:21 +0530 CS SCJ 381/2018 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 14 of 17 with it.
52.The Defendant's inaction on the issue aside, this Court cannot become party to the wrong deeds of the Plaintiff and give its imprimatur to such actions and legitimize illegal and unauthorised constructions. While the prayer to repair may seem innocuous, granting it will be akin to sanctioning encroachment on public property and also unauthorised construction. Plaintiff ought to have known that all these decades she may have successfully defeated the law with or without the blessings of the officials of the Defendant but should she need it one day, the law will not come to her aid. To seek equity, one must do equity.
53.Learned Counsel for the Defendant has relied on Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin, 2025 INSC 610, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, in strong words, dealt with the ills of unauthorized constructions and has observed as follows:
"5. In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, 2024 INSC 990, we have made ourselves very explicitly clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. In the event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorised construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. . .
XXX Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH CS SCJ 381/2018 SINGH Date:
2025.09.25 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 15 of 17 16:25:25 +0530
7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.
[See : Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)]"
(Emphasis is mine)
54.This Court has expressed as much, in the reasoning given above.
55.Thus, I find that the conduct of the Plaintiff is such which disentitles her from the assistance of the Court and the discretionary relief of an injunction, within the meaning of Section 41(i) of Specific Relief Act, 1963. This is in addition to already having found that no cause of action exists at all to sustain this suit. Though if it did, Plaintiff still wouldn't be entitled to relief.
56.This issue is also thus decided in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff.
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV PRATAP
CS SCJ 381/2018 PRATAP SINGH
SINGH Date:
Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 16 of 17 2025.09.25
16:25:28
+0530
CONCLUSION
57.In view of the above findings, the suit of the Plaintiff fails and is dismissed. No costs.
58.A copy of this judgment be sent to the CEO, Delhi Cantonment Board to bring the same to his knowledge. This Court is sanguine in expecting that the Defendant shall wake up from its decades-long slumber and take appropriate action as per law to reclaim public land, as per its own stand.
59.File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance, as per rules.
Pronounced by me in the Open Court on 25.09.2025.
VAIBHAV Digitally
by VAIBHAV
signed
PRATAP PRATAP SINGH
Date: 2025.09.25
SINGH 16:25:33 +0530
(VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH)
Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts New Delhi District, Delhi CS SCJ 381/2018 Anju Rani v. Delhi Cantonment Board Page No. 17 of 17