Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Causes Court­Cum­Guardian Judge vs Shri Surender Kumar on 19 February, 2020

    In the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge­cum­Judge Small
    Causes Court­cum­Guardian Judge, North West District, Rohini
                              Courts, Delhi
                  Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
CS No. 59330/16
Shri Rajesh Seth
S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Seth
Shop No. 2, Ground Floor,
Property no. 1, Kapil Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi.                               ......Plaintiff
                         Versus
1. Shri Surender Kumar
S/o Shri Laxman Dass
R/o LU­12, Pitampura,
Delhi­110088.
2. MCD
Through its Mayor
Rohini Zone, Delhi.
3. M/s Shikha Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director, First Floor,
1, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi.                               ......Defendants

Date of Institution                                   :               11.07.2012
Date on which judgment was reserved                   :               17.02.2020
Date of pronouncing judgment                          :               19.02.2020
   SUIT FOR MANDATORY & PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT:

­

1. Brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff is running the jewelery shop under the name & style of M/s Om Prakash Jewels in the suit property. The defendant no. 1 is also residing on the first floor of the shop premises of the plaintiff and have inimical terms with the plaintiff for the last 2­3 years. The defendant no. 1 earlier has filed a complaint against the CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 1 of 18 plaintiff, in which a kalandra was made which got dismissed against the plaintiff. A civil suit is also pending for the dispute arisen in respect of sign board when the defendant no. 1 had tried to remove the sign board of the showroom of the plaintiff.

2. The defendant no. 1 was raising some construction work on his portion of 1st floor of the same building without taking any permission from the defendant no. 2 or from any other authority regarding the construction. On dated 24.04.2012, when the plaintiff was sitting at his shop, he heard some noise and following them reached behind the shop and he saw that some labourers were doing some civil works. They had made a big hole in the back side of the wall of the showroom of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff enquired from the labourers, they replied that they have been directed by Shri Surender Kumar, who is the owner of the first floor, 1 Kapil Vihar, Delhi. The photographs of the suit property showing the hole and other damages occurred at the suit property are annexed. The plaintiff made a complaint in writing on the same day i.e. 24.04.2012 to the local police station, a copy of which was sent through Indian Post on 26.04.2012 to the Ld. ACP, DCP concerned and the Commissioner of Police.

3. In the back side of the showroom of the plaintiff as well as the shop no. 1, 2 and 3 owned by different respective owners and for the first floor owned by the defendant no. 1, the water pipe is installed/ fitted and the water meter by Delhi Jal Board has been installed which has been locked by making an iron grill. The defendant no. 1 has placed his lock over the iron grill and refrained the plaintiff from noting the meter reading of Delhi Jal Board by stating that the defendant no. 1 has purchased the entire back CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 2 of 18 side portion shown in the site plan from the concerned authority and the plaintiff has no right to continue with the water meter installed by Delhi Jal Board. When the defendant no. 1 came to know about the moving of the complaint against him, he started extending threats to the plaintiff for dire consequences. Due to the aforesaid conduct of the defendant no. 1 the plaintiff is suffering immense hardship and harassment. The defendant has no right, title or authority to lock the iron grill in the back side portion of the suit property.

Written Statement of defendant no. 1 and 3.

4. The defendant no. 1 and 3 filed written statement stating that the plaintiff has neither any locus standi to institute the suit nor has he any personal right or interest in any portion of the property no. 1, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi­110034 belonging to and owned by defendant no. 3. The suit of the plaintiff is not sustainable in view of the provisions of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, in as much as neither any privity of contract exists between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 nor defendant no. 3 has created any kind of obligation in favour of the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff is devoid of any cause of action. The plaintiff is guilty of latches and as such is not entitled to any discretionary relief in the suit based on an alleged cause of action dating back to 24.04.2012. The suit has not been properly valued in as much as the plaintiff has not paid proper Court fees for each relief claimed in the prayer clause. Further, it is submitted that property no. 1, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi is owned by defendant no. 3 who is the owners of the first floor, second floor with roof rights and the entire set­back portion of ground floor. Defendant no. 1 and 3 are not CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 3 of 18 residing in any portion of the aforesaid property. Plaintiff had sent the notice in suit at property no. LU­12, Pitampura, Delhi­110034. In the absence of the owner of property no. 1, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi, plaintiff keeps on interfering with the water and electricity installations therein. Suit no. 6/2011 instituted by the wife of the plaintiff is pending before the Court and is being contested by the defendant no. 1 and 3.

5. It is submitted that the averments made in plaint are absolutely vague and are devoid of particulars of the alleged unauthorized constructions at first floor. Defendant no. 1 and 3 being the owners have not carried out any alleged construction which required any permission from defendant no. 2. It is specifically denied that on 24.04.2012 any hole in the wall of the showroom of the plaintiff was made by any labourer. It is further stated that the entire building including the shop of the plaintiff had been constructed by the previous owner without sanction of defendant no. 2, but the existing construction is within compoundable limits. No hole in the wall of the showroom of the plaintiff has been made as alleged. Plaintiff and Shri C.L. Kapahi, i.e., plaintiff in suit no. 5/2011 had unauthorizedly got installed water meter and booster pumps in the set back portion belonging to and owned by defendant no. 3.

6. Since none is residing in the property, defendant no. 3 has installed iron gate to prevent any unauthorized entry from the back side in the set back portion. Since water meter and booster pumps have been installed in the set back without any permission from defendant no. 3, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the present suit against the defendant no. 1 and

3. Plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief either of mandatory or CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 4 of 18 permanent injunction in view of the provisions of Section 39 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act.

Written statement of defendant no. 2/MCD.

7. The defendant no. 2/ MCD filed written statement submitting that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 477/478 of DMC Act, 1957 for want of service of statutory notice and as such the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs whatsoever against the defendant as the officials of the defendant have inspected the suit property i.e. 1, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi on 22.08.2012 and it was found that the property consists of basement, ground, first and second floor. The ground floor was found totally commercial and first and second floor are meant for residential purpose. However, during the inspection it has been noticed that the rear set back of the suit property has been converted from basement to second floor i.e. deviation against sanctioned building plan.

8. The relevant record in respect of the property in question has also been obtained from the office of the Rohini Zone of DMC and it was found that the property in question was booked twice firstly vide file no. 279/B/UC/RZ/99 dated 20.12.1999 in the shape of deviation against sanctioned building plan and unauthorized construction in set back. A show cause notice was issued u/s 343/344 of DMC and after following due process of law, demolition order was passed on 28.12.1999. On second time the unauthorized construction was booked on the basis of Court case / old occupied vide file no. 130/B/UC/RZ/2009 dated 10.04.2002 in the shape of unauthorized construction of two rooms and toilet at third floor. A show cause notice u/s 343/344 DMC Act was issued and served to the CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 5 of 18 owner/ building and after following due process of law, demolition order was passed on 06.05.2002. The defendant no. 2 had also taken demolition action in respect of the suit property so many times and demolished the construction at the third floor and removed other deviations.

9. The owner of the suit property Mr. Ashok Gandhi applied for regularization of the compoundable deviations and unauthorized construction before the competent authority who regularized the portion which could be regularized as per building bye­laws and area shown in yellow colour in the annexed regularization plan which are the rear set back at the ground floor, first floor and some portion at second floor which could not be regularized. In this regard the defendant has taken removal action of such deviation but at present when the property was inspected on 22.08.2012 it was found that rear set back which was to be demolished by the owner/ occupier of the building and the portion which was earlier demolished by the defendant were found intact which is liable to be removed by the owner or by the defendant no. 2. The photocopy of the regularization plan is annexed as Annexure A.

10. It is submitted that the Ministry of Law & Justice has enacted the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act 2012 which has come into force on 01.01.2012 whereby as per Section 3 (2) of the Act status quo shall be maintained in respect of encroachments or unauthorized development in respect of all other areas within the National Capital Territory of Delhi as on 08.02.2007 and shall be deemed to have been suspended and no punitive action shall be taken till 31st December 2014. As per record, the deviations in the suit property in the rear set back CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 6 of 18 is prior to 8th February 2007 and as per this Special Law the defendant cannot demolish the existing deviations at the rear set back. It is also stated that during the inspection, no construction was seen in the progress nor any building material was stacked at site. However, the rear set back portion was fully locked from outside and as per enquires it was apprised that the keys are with the owner/ occupier of the first floor and the owner of the first floor was not available. When the property was inspected on 22.08.2012 no such construction was found in progress by the defendant no. 1 who has been alleged by occupier of first floor and the rear service line side of the property was found locked. As regards the allegations by the plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 has made big hole in the back side of the wall of the show room of the plaintiff, the said allegations can be verified only after inspection of rear set back from inner side after opening the lock. The portion shown in yellow colour in the regularized plan of rear set back from ground floor to second floor is not compoundable nor regularizable but is actionable as per law.

11. No replication filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendants.

ISSUES

12. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, issues framed by order dated 24.08.2015 are as follows:­

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction in para a of prayer clause? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in para b of prayer clause? OPP CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 7 of 18

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed in para c of prayer clause? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed in para ­d of prayer clause? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in para­e of prayer clause?OPP

6. Whether the present suit is barred by provisions of Section 477/478 of the DMC Act? OPD­2.

7. Relief.

PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE

13. The plaintiff examined only one witness i.e. plaintiff himself as PW­

1. He tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex. PW­1/A and has relied upon the following documents:­

1. Site plan of the entire property as Ex. PW1/A.

2. The photographs of the suit property as Ex.PW1/B.

3. Complaint dated 24.04.2012 to the police as Ex. PW1/C.

14. During cross­examination PW ­1 stated that he is running a jewelery shop at ground floor of suit property since 2002. The defendant no. 1 has purchased the part of the suit property consisting of above the ground floor in the year 2006 - 2007. In the rear set back of the suit property, there was water meter, electricity meter, sewage system and AC pipes. It is admitted that the rear portion wherein the above said facilities are provided was open to sky. Defendant after purchasing the abovesaid property and covered the rear set back and also took a key of the iron gate fixed earlier prior to purchase. At the time of purchase of abovesaid property, plaintiff has also CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 8 of 18 received the approved sanction building plan and existing building bye laws of MCD in which the rear set back portion was shown as vacant. Plaintiff has admitted that the rear portion of suit property cannot be covered or constructed. Plaintiff has admitted that the MCD has booked the unauthorized construction/ deviation of the said property. Plaintiff has seen the copy of the registered sale deed dated 09.07.2004 vide which defendant no. 3 is the absolute owner of rear set back portion measuring 23' 6" x 6.3"

on ground floor back side alongwith three mezzanines lines i.e. first floor, second floor and third floor. PW1 admitted that defendant no. 1 and 3 are not residing in the suit property. Plaintiff had not obtained any prior permission from the defendants before installation of water pipe, water meter and booster pump in set back portion owned by defendants. The iron gate was installed prior to his purchase. Plaintiff has not placed any document so as to show that the back portion is a common passage, however, PW1 stated that as per precedent, back portion is left open just to provide civic amenities. It is admitted that the construction existing at the spot as on date alongwith jewelery shop was raised by the previous owner of the defendants. Plaintiff did not know whether defendant no. 2 i.e. MCD had already regularized the unauthorized construction carried out by the previous owner of defendants.

After cross­examination, plaintiff evidence was closed.

DEFENDANTS'S EVIDENCE

15. The defendant no. 1 examined only one witness i.e. defendant himself as DW­1. He tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex. DW­1/A.

1. Copy of the sale deed as Ex. DW1/1.

CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 9 of 18

2. Copy of the FIR dated 12.10.2011 as Ex. DW1/2.

16. DW1 stated that the property is in the name of his father's company i.e. M/s Shikha Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. comprising of rear set back portion of ground floor, first floor, second floor, roof right and all mezzanine floors of the above said property. Defendant submitted that he is not aware whether the MCD has booked some portion of the property for demolition. The gate at the backside portion on the ground floor of the building was already existing when defendant purchased the part of property. The water meter of the plaintiff is installed in the set back portion of the suit property which has been installed by the plaintiff after breaking the wall. The said water meter is installed inside the iron gate where the plaintiff can enter by opening the lock of the iron gate. Defendant again said the water meter is installed outside the wall which can also be seen from the outside. When plaintiff and defendant, had the friendly terms, the plaintiff used to visit the rear set back portion of the property. After purchasing of the property, defendant had got repaired some old pipes. Defendant stated that backside wall of the plaintiff is the common wall of the plaintiff and defendant. It is denied that during the repairing of the pipe, labours had made a hole in the backside wall of the plaintiff.

After cross­examination, defendant evidence was closed.

17. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties and issues wise findings are as under:­ 18. ISSUES NO. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction in para a of prayer clause? OPP CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 10 of 18 Or in other words whether there is any hole or other damages in the back side portion of the suit property of the plaintiff which was caused on 24.04.2012 by the defendant which needs to be repaired.

PW1 has stated that on 24.04.2012 he saw some labourers doing some civil work behind his shop. The labourers who had made big hole in the back side wall of the showroom of the plaintiff. On inquiry, they replied that they have been directed by defendant no. 1 who is owner of first floor. PW1 stated to have given a complaint to the police regarding the same. PW1 has relied upon the photograph Ex. PW1/B, however, from the photograph it is not clear whether the said photographs belong to the suit property or not. No property number is mentioned nor it is clear that any such hole is dug on the wall of the property of the plaintiff. Even though, PW1 has stated to given a complaint Ex. PW1/C to the police station PS Subhash Place however, the plaintiff has failed to prove the said complaint through the concerned official or the said Police Station. Hence, the said document has also remained not proved. Further, the defendant no. 2/ MCD as well has stated in the WS that during inspection no construction was seen in progress nor any building material was stacked at site. In view of above discussions, issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in para b of prayer clause? OPP The plaintiff had asked for production of documents by the defendant no. 1 to show the area under his ownership at the first floor and CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 11 of 18 back side iron grill covered area. The defendant has already placed on record copy of sale deed Ex. DW1/1. The said prayer is already complied by production of the sale deed. Hence, the issue no. 2 is decided in positive.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed in para c of prayer clause? OPP Or in other words whether the plaintiff has any right to get handed over the keys of the iron grill to note the DJB meter reading.

In order to get the keys of the iron grill, the plaintiff has to show that he has any ownership / possessory or easementory right over the area covered by the iron grill. PW1 has stated that the water pipe and the water meter by the DJB has been installed / fitted in the back side of the showroom for the plaintiff's portion as well as or the shop no. 1, 2 and 3 owned by different respective owners. The said portion has been locked by making an iron grill and the defendant no. 1 has placed his lock over the iron grill and refused the plaintiff to note the meter reading of DJB by stating that defendant no. 1 had purchased the entire back side portion shown in the site plan from the concerned authority and plaintiff has no right to continue with the water meter installed by DJB. During cross­ examination, PW­1 has admitted that as per registered sale deed dated 09.07.2004 Ex. DW1/1 defendant no. 3 is the absolute owner of rear set back portion measuring 23' 6" x 6.3" on ground floor back side alongwith three mezzanines and first and second floor. Further PW1 admitted that he has not obtained any prior permission from the defendants before CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 12 of 18 installation of water pipe, water meter and booster pump in the set back portion owned by the defendants. PW1 has failed to place on record any document to show that the back portion is a common passage. Hence, from the own version of the plaintiff it is clear that plaintiff is neither the owner of the portion where the iron grill is installed. Further, without permission from the owner of the said portion defendant, the plaintiff has installed his water meter in the said area/ portion which is owned by the defendant.

DW1 has categorically stated that the instant suit is the counter blast to the objections raised by the defendant no. 1 and 3 to the unauthorized installation of water meter and booster pump in the set back portion by the plaintiff without any authority, which portion belongs to and is owned by defendant no. 3. Thus, as the water meter has been installed in the portion belonging to defendant no. 3, the plaintiff does not have any right either in the form of ownership or any easementory right over that portion. The plaintiff has failed to prove any precedent that the back portion is to be left open to provide civic amenities. Hence, issue no. 3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed in para ­d of prayer clause? OPP The plaintiff has sought direction to the MCD to take action against the defendant no. 1 and 3 for raising construction without permission of MCD and for illegal encroachment of the unauthorized portion as shown in yellow colour in the site plan.

During cross­examination PW1 has stated that at the time of CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 13 of 18 purchase of his portion of the property, he received the approved sanction building plan and existing building bye laws of MCD in which the rear set back portion was shown as vacant and the rear portion of the suit property cannot be covered or constructed. He admitted that the MCD has booked the unauthorized construction/ deviation of the said property but voluntary stated that the Defendant no.1 and 3 had re­constructed the same. Further PW1 admitted that the construction existing at the spot as on date alongwith his jewelery shop was raised by the previous owner of the defendants. He did not know whether defendant no. 2 / MCD had already regularized the unauthorized construction carried out by the previous owner of the defendants.

Defendant no. 2/ MCD in the written statement has already stated that during inspection deviation of the sanction building site plan have been noticed in the rear set back of the suit property whereby it has been converted from basement to second floor. The relevant record in respect of the property in question has also been obtained from the office of the Rohini Zone of DMC and it was found that the property in question was booked twice firstly vide file no. 279/B/UC/RZ/99 dated 20.12.1999 in the shape of deviation against sanctioned building plan and unauthorized construction in set back. A show cause notice was issued u/s 343/344 of DMC and after following due process of law demolition order was passed on 28.12.1999 and second time the unauthorized construction was booked on the basis of Court case / old occupied vide file no. 130/B/UC/RZ/2009 dated 10.04.2002 in the shape of unauthorized construction of two rooms and toilet at third floor. A show cause notice u/s 343/344 DMC Act was CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 14 of 18 issued and served to the owner/ building and after following due process of law, demolition order was passed on 06.05.2002. The defendant no. 2 had also taken demolition action in respect of the suit property so many times and demolished the construction at the third floor and removed other deviations.

Furthermore, the owner of the suit property Mr. Ashok Gandhi applied for regularization of the compoundable deviations and unauthorized construction before the competent authority, which regularized the portion which could be regularized as per building bye­ laws. However, the area shown in yellow colour in the annexed regularization plan which are the rear set back at the ground floor, first floor and some portion at second floor could not be regularized. In this regard the defendant has taken removal action of such deviation, but at present when the property was inspected on 22.08.2012, it was found that rear set back which was to be demolished by the owner/ occupier of the building and the portion which was earlier demolished by the defendants were found intact which is liable to be removed by the owner or by the defendant no. 2. The photocopy of the regularization plan is annexed as Annexure A. Defendant no. 2 has It is submitted that the Ministry of Law & Justice has enacted the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act 2012 which has come into force on 01.01.2012 whereby as per Section 3 (2) of the Act status quo shall be maintained in respect of encroachments or unauthorized development in respect of all other areas within the National Capital Territory of Delhi as on 08.02.2007 CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 15 of 18 and shall be deemed to have been suspended and no punitive action shall be taken till 31st December 2014. As per record the deviations in the suit property in the rear set back is prior to 8th February 2007.

Perusal of the site plan Ex. PW1/A show that there is a noting by the zonal engineer, Building Rohini Zone dated 30.03.1999 that regularization of the suit property for the portion shown in red colour is accepted subject to the condition that this will not confer any right to continue with the construction shown in yellow colour on the plan and for misuse of any part of the building being carried in violation of the sanction use. The said building plan is not disputed by the defendant. Hence, it is clear that there unauthorized construction/ deviation as shown in yellow colour in the site plan which is against the sanctioned building plan. The said unauthorized portion is actionable by the MCD for which the MCD has already booked the said portion. Hence, the issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in para­e of prayer clause?OPP The plaintiff has asked for restraining the defendants from causing any further damages in the suit property of the plaintiff by raising any construction or any other type.

In order to prove this issue the plaintiff had to show whether there is any damages to the property of the plaintiff caused by the defendant. PW1 has not been able to prove that there was any damage to the property by the defendant. The issue no. 1 has already been decided against the plaintiff. CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 16 of 18 Accordingly, the plaintiff is not able to prove any damage to his property by the defendant, the issue no. 5 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.

Whether the present suit is barred by provisions of Section 477/478 of the DMC Act? OPD­2.

The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 2 Section 478 (1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 bars filing of suit against Corporation in respect of any act done in pursuance of the Act etc. until expiration of two months after notice in writing has been left at the municipal office. But it is pertinent to note that Section 478 (3) of DMC Act provides that 'nothing in sub­section (1) shall be deemed to apply to a suit in which the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by the giving of the notice or the postponement of the institution of the suit.' It is natural that when any person is apprehending damage to his property, then a period of two months notice to MCD would defeat the very object of relief sought against unauthorized construction. Moreover, the defendant no. 2 has not led any evidence to prove the said issue.

Hence, the filing of present suit is not barred by Section 478 of DMC Act. Similarly, in view of above said observations, this suit is also not barred by Section 477 of DMC Act. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.

RELIEF CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 17 of 18

24. In the present suit unauthorized construction is found in the yellow portion of the suit property as per Section 3 (c) of National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act 2017 notified on 31.12.2017 status quo shall be maintained in respect of encroachments or unauthorized development in respect of all other areas within the National Capital Territory of Delhi as on 08.02.2007 and shall be deemed to have been suspended and no punitive action shall be taken till 31st December 2020.

25. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed to the effect that the defendant no. 2 is directed to take action against the erring defendant for raising unauthorized construction without permission of the MCD and for illegal encroachment of the unauthorized construction as when permissible and in accordance with law (presently which has been suspended upto 31.12.2020). The suit is accordingly partly decreed. Both parties shall bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar) on 19th Day of February 2020 Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Judge, Small Causes Court cum Guardian Judge, North­West District, Rohini, Delhi (This judgment contains 18 pages.) CS No. 59330/16 Rajesh Seth v. Surender Kumar Page No. 18 of 18