Delhi District Court
Charanpreet Kaur & Ors vs The Executive Engineer & Anr on 19 March, 2014
CHARANPREET KAUR & ORS VS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJAT GOYAL: CJ04 (SOUTH):
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
CS No.448/2013
CHARANPREET KAUR & ORS ... Plaintiffs
Versus
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR ... Defendants
ORDER
(on plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC)
1. Vide this order of mine, I shall decide the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiffs/applicants.
2. Brief background of this case is that plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession, mesne profits and future damages averring therein that ground, 1st and 2nd floor of property bearing no.L26, NDSE PartII, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property") were let out by late Sh. Rajinder Singh to the defendants in January, 1971 at a monthly rent of Rs.3000/. That no formal lease deed was executed at that time. That the said Rajinder Singh died and suit property was mutated in favour of the plaintiffs. That the plaintiffs requested the defendants to pay market rent @Rs. 55,000/ vide letter dated 10.11.1990. That POA holder of the plaintiffs again requested the defendants to increase the rent CS No. 448/2013 1 of 5 CHARANPREET KAUR & ORS VS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR of the suit property vide letter dated 05.01.1995. That defendants informed the plaintiffs vide letter dated 15.05.2001 that rent of the suit property has been increased @15% every three years commencing from 27.01.1990 vide order dated 23.06.2001. That a rent bill was then sent by the plaintiffs to the defendants on 21.05.2001. That the defendants paid the rent in accordance with the rent bill and continued to pay enhanced rent upto July 2004. That the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy by way of notice dated 23.11.2004. That the defendants failed to vacate the suit property despite the said notice. Hence, the present suit. By way of the present application, it has been submitted that defendants are raising construction over the suit property without any permission from the plaintiffs and that the said construction is of permanent nature. Hence, the present application for restraining the defendants from carrying out any additions or alterations or structural changes in the suit property.
3. In reply to the present suit, defendants have filed their written statement (WS) denying all the allegations as contained in the plaint. It has further been submitted on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit. That the present suit is barred by Section 80 of CPC. That this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. That plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit property. That rent could not have been CS No. 448/2013 2 of 5 CHARANPREET KAUR & ORS VS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR legally enhanced by the defendants. That enhanced rent was paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs because of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. That there is no proof whatsoever that defendants are raising construction over the suit property. Hence, the present suit as well as interim injunction application be dismissed.
4. I have heard the contentions of both the sides and also gone through the case file carefully. The principles regarding grant of temporary injunction are well settled. In order to be entitled to temporary injunction, the applicant must show
(i) that primafacie case lies in his favour;
(ii) that balance of convenience also lies in his favour and
(iii)that he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the said injunction is refused.
5. Coming to the point of primafacie case, Ld. counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that defendants are indulging in construction over the suit property and that the defendants are causing permanent structural changes in the suit property. Hence, it has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs/applicants that defendants be restrained from doing so by allowing the present application. However, I do not find much merit in this argument of the Ld. counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants. It has been alleged by the plaintiffs that defendants are causing permanent structural changes in the suit property by way of construction and renovation.
CS No. 448/2013 3 of 5 CHARANPREET KAUR & ORS VS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR However, there is not even an iota of proof regarding the said allegation of the plaintiffs/applicants. Plaintiffs have not even placed on record any photographs to atleast prima facie establish that defendants are indulging in any such construction. Also, it must be noted here that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking a decree of possession as well as mesne profits and future damages. No relief has been sought by the plaintiffs/applicants for restraining the defendants from raising any construction or causing any structural changes in the suit property in the main suit. It was held in the case of Sree Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vid Vs Phundan Singh 1999 (2) SCC 377 that where interim relief has not been claimed by the plaintiff in the main suit, interim injunction beyond the scope of the suit cannot be granted. I also rely upon the case of Jayatilal Khatri Vs Bhagwandas Khatri 2001 AIHC 1461 (Guj) wherein it was held that interim injunction cannot be granted where perpetual injunction for similar relief has not been prayed in the suit. In the instant case, as has already been observed above, the relief claimed in the present interim injunction application has not been sought by the plaintiffs in the main suit.
6. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of interim injunction. Thus, plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC is hereby dismissed. However, nothing said herein shall tantamount to expression of CS No. 448/2013 4 of 5 CHARANPREET KAUR & ORS VS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR opinion on the merits of the main case.
7. The application stands disposed off accordingly. Announced in the open Court on 19th Day of March 2014 (Rajat Goyal) CJ04 (South)/Saket Courts New Delhi/19.03.2014 CS No. 448/2013 5 of 5