Delhi District Court
Smt. Narinder Kaur vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation on 3 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM
RENT CONTROLLER ( SOUTH EAST), DISTRICT COURTS,
SAKET, NEW DELHI
CS No: 50285/16
CNR No. DLSE030000082014
Smt. Narinder Kaur
W/o Late Sh. Sukh Chain Singh
R/o CI/14, Ground Floor,
Lajpat Nagar - I,
New Delhi - 110024.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner's
Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Centre,
Jawaharlal Nehru Margh, New Delhi - 110002.
2. S.H.O. PS Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Shri Shanti
S/o Late Shri Surjeet Singh
R/o CI/14, Ground Floor,
Lajpat Nagar I, New Delhi - 110024.
4. Shri Bunty
S/o Late Shri Surjeet Singh
R/o CI/14, Ground Floor,
Lajpat NagarI, New Delhi - 110024. ....Defendants
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 1/40
Date of institution of suit : 24.05.2014
Date on which Judgment reserved : 03.09.2016
Date on which judgment pronounced : 03.09.2016
Decision : Suit decreed
J U D G M E N T
1. The present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction has
been filed by the plaintiff seeking to restrain defendant no. 3 and 4 from
raising unauthorized construction at property bearing no. CI/14, Lajpat
Nagar I, New Delhi - 110024 measuring around 100 square yards
(hereinafter referred to as the suit property) and further to direct defendant
no. 1 to 4 to stop the illegal and unauthorized construction at the suit
property and to demolish the entire unauthorized construction raised at the
suit property as well as to remove the construction material and equipments
from the suit property.
Plaint
2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is a widow and defendant
no. 3 and 4 are her cousins. It is further her case that the suit property was
allotted to the father of the plaintiff namely Sh. Gurbachan Singh and a
structure consisting of ground floor, half first floor and half second floor
was raised in the suit property for residential purpose.
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 2/40
2.1 It is further her case that out of natural love and affection the
father of the plaintiff allowed his real brother namely Sh. Surjeet Singh to
occupy one room in front portion of ground floor as a licensee and after the
death of Sh. Surjeet Singh his two sons i.e. defendant no. 3 and 4 continued
to occupy one room in front portion of ground floor.
2.2 It is further her case that after the death of her father Sh.
Gurbachan Singh, the plaintiff, her sister and her brothers jointly inherited
the suit property and defendant no. 3 and 4 are only licensee and they have
got no right, title or interest in the suit property.
2.3 It is further her case that defendant no. 1 is responsible for
proper and planned development, maintenance and for all sorts of civic
amenities at Lajpat Nagar and defendant no. 2 is responsible for maintaining
law and order in the locality. Furthermore, defendant no. 1 and 2 are jointly
and severally responsible for ensuring safety and well being of the general
public, maintaining law and order and ensuring obedience of statutory laws
including building by laws at Lajpat Nagar.
2.4 It is further her case that defendant no. 1 and 2 are responsible
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 3/40
for ensuring that no illegal and unauthorized construction is being carried
out at Lajpat Nagar and that before construction of any new building prior
sanction from Delhi Municipal Corporation i.e. defendant no.1 is obtained
for ensuring planned and systematic development of locality in accordance
with the availability of civic facilities, population and to ensure safety of
general public.
2.5 It is further her case that in disregard to all the laws, defendant
no. 3 and 4, in collusion and in connivance with employees of defendant no.
1 and 2 are raising illegal and unauthorized construction in the front portion
of the suit property by covering the open front verandha. It is further her
case that by misusing their muscle power the defendant no. 1 and 2 have
forcibly removed the internal load bearing walls and have constructed one
room on the ground floor and one on the first floor along with staircase on
the front side. Furthermore, in complete disregard to basic health, comfort
and safety of the other residents of the building and neighbours, day and
night construction is going on causing harassment and annoyance to all.
2.6 It is further her case that on 05.05.2014 when the construction
was raised by defendant no. 3 and 4 she made a call at PCR and the police
officials only reported the matter to defendant no. 1 by reference no. 518 and
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 4/40
578 dated 05.05.2014 and did not take any further steps to stop illegal and
unauthorized construction. It is further her case that again a complaint was
made to defendant no. 2 on 18.05.2014 and on 19.05.2014. On 19.05.2014
complaint was given to Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Executive Engineer SDMC
and Deputy Commissioner SDMC but no action was taken by defendant no.
1 on these complaints to stop the illegal and unauthorized construction
raised by defendant no. 3 and 4.
2.7 It is further her case that the plaintiff has repeatedly brought the
illegal and unlawful acts of defendant no. 3 and 4 to the notice of defendant
no. 1 and 2 but they prefer to keep their eyes and ears closed and are not
taking necessary action in accordance with law and the plaintiff has no other
remedy and hence the present suit.
3. The defendants appeared in pursuant to service of summons
and filed their separate written statements and status report.
Status report of defendant no. 1
4. Defendant no.1 did not file any Written Statement and
instead filed a status report.
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 5/40
4.1. It was submitted in the status report that the property has been
booked u/s 343/344 of DMC Act 1957 vide file no.
459/B/UC/EE(B)/1/CNZ/14 dated 08.08.2014 and after following the due
process of law show cause notice has been sent/served upon the
owner/builder/occupier. It is further submitted that further action as per the
DMC Act shall be taken upon the premises which is otherwise lying in
abandoned condition.
Written Statement of Defendant no. 3 and 4
5. Defendant no. 3 and 4 in their Written Statement pleaded that
the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and the entire
portion wherein the plaintiff is residing is itself unauthorized and built
without any sanction plan from MCD and is therefore liable to be
demolished.
5.1 It was further pleaded that the defendant no. 3 and 4 are not
licensees in the suit property and they have been in use and possession of the
same as a matter of their right as coowners/cosharers as they were born in
the same property.
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 6/40
5.2 It was further pleaded that the suit property was not allotted to
the plaintiff's father and she has intentionally and deliberately suppressed
the truth. The property was alloted to the parties grandfather namely Sh.
Gian Singh against the compensation claim awarded to him. It was pleaded
that the allotment papers are with the plaintiff and her brother Sh. Surinder
Singh who is also residing in the suit property and this fact has been
concealed from this court.
5.3 It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has not produced any
allotment letter or document showing allotment of the property in the name
of her father. It was further pleaded that the property was alloted in the
name of Sh. Gian Singh and the property is even assessed to property tax in
his name only.
5.4 It was further pleaded that at the time of allotment, the property
comprised of only two rooms with cement asbestos sheets roofing, but in
1980, the property was constructed a new by the defendants father late Sh.
Surjeet Singh with his own resources who constructed two sets on the
ground floor of the property, a front set and a rear set. It was pleaded that
the front sent comprised of one room, kitchen, bath and latrine. The rear set
comprised of two rooms, a verandah, kitchen, bath and latrine. Sh. Surjeet
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 7/40
Singh also constructed a room on the first floor and tin room on the second
floor over the ground rear set. As regards the front set, on the ground floor,
one room and a latrine were constructed over it as the first floor and one
room above as the second floor. Both sets have independent staircase
reaching at the floors. The entire front floors have been throughout in the
use of Late Sh. Surjeet Singh and his family and in the rear floors, the
plaintiff and other members of her fathers family have been residing. It was
further pleaded that at present plaintiff and her brother Sh. Surinder Singh
are living. It was pleaded that the present construction is the same which
Late Sh. Surjeet Singh had constructed and no fresh construction was made
in the suit property thereafter.
5.5 It was further pleaded that the grandfather of the defendants
lived in the suit property alongwith his family including the defendants. The
defendants have been living in the front floor ever since till now. It was
further pleaded that the rear portion was in the use and occupation of the
plaintiff's father.
5.6 It was pleaded that the plaintiff was living with her husband in
Kalkaji and came to live in the suit property after the death of her husband.
The allotment papers were with Late Sh. Gian Singh and after his demise,
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 8/40
the papers remained in the custody of Late Sh. Gurbachan Singh as he was
the eldest member of the family and are now with the plaintiff and her
brother.
5.7 It was pleaded that plaintiffs father and defendants father were
real brothers and sons of Late Sh. Gian Singh and after the death of Sh. Gian
Singh the property was inherited by the plaintiff's father and the father of the
defendants and they became coowners/cosharers of the suit property in
equal shares and the defendants have been in exclusive possession and use of
the accommodation with them as a matter of right.
5.8 It was further pleaded that there was no occasion for the
plaintiff's father to let the defendant's father to merely occupy one room in
the front portion of the ground floor. The plaintiff has deliberately and
intentionally suppressed the true facts and made false statements and she is
not entitled to the discretionary reliefs sought by her.
5.9 It was further pleaded that the plaintiff's father inherited,
undivided one half share of the suit property and the defendants father too
inherited the other undivided one half share of the suit property and the
defendants have thus been in possession of the suit property as a matter of
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 9/40
right. It was further pleaded that in view of the false averments made by the
plaintiff, the defendants have realized that it is high time that the suit
property is divided between them equally. It was further pleaded that one
half undivided portion of the suit property devolved by inheritance on the
family members of the plaintiff's father, comprising of the plaintiff, her
sister and four brothers and the plaintiff has only 1/6th share in the one half
undivided share of the suit property and the plaintiffs share is only 8.3 sq.
yards.
5.10 It was further pleaded that no illegal and unauthorized
construction is being carried out in any portion of the suit property or on the
front portion and no load bearing walls have been removed and no rooms on
the ground floor and the first floor nor any staircase have been constructed.
It was further pleaded that the covered verandah and the said rooms already
existed and had been constructed by the defendant's father,Late Sh. Surjeet
Singh after allotment of the suit property and the same being decades old
and weakened by the passage of time needed repairs.
5.11 It was further pleaded that the defendants are carrying on
repairs, for which no prior permission from the South Delhi Municipal
Corporation is necessary under the law. It was further pleaded that the roof
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 10/40
of the room on the second floor leaked during rainy season and the repairs
affected from to time to time were not effective and it became necessary to
replace the roof with a new roof and the defendant are doing the work of
renewal of the roof of the room on the second floor. It was further pleaded
that the plaster of the walls was peeling and the same had to be scrapped and
new plaster is to be done. The staircase had already existed there and no new
construction is being done and the plaintiff's suit is false.
5.12 It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has been pressurizing
the defendants to sell their portion in the suit property to her which the
defendants have refused and thus the plaintiff is alleging the repair work as
new construction to harass the defendants.
5.13 It was further pleaded that the plaintiff's report to the police
were false and therefore, no action was taken.
5.14 It was further pleaded that in the beginning of the year 2014
defendant suggested the plaintiff to partition the suit property between the
legal heirs of Late Sh. Gurbachan Singh and Surjeet Singh and each side to
have its one half share of the suit property. It was further pleaded that as the
defendant wanted partition therefore, refused to sell their share to her and
thus the plaintiff is carrying bitterness against the defendant and picking up
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 11/40
quarrels with them.
Replication
6. The plaintiff filed the replication to the Written Statement of
defendant no. 3 and 4 and denied the entire averments of the written
statement and simultaneously reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the
plaint.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues
were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide orders dated 17.09.2014.
ISSUES
1.Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for mandatory injunction as
prayed in clause "i"? OPP
2.Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed
in clause "ii"? OPP
3.Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed
in clause "iii" OPP
4.Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed
in clause "iv" OPP
5. Relief.
Plaintiff's evidence
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 12/40
8. In order to prove her case the plaintiff examined herself as PW1
and deposed on the lines of plaint. She tendered her evidence by way of
affidavit as Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon documents i.e photographs as Ex.
PW1/A (colly), complaints Ex. PW1/B(colly), suit as Ex. PW1/C.
8.1 Plaintiff also examined Sh. R. P. Singh, Junior Engineer, M1,
Central Zone, SDMC, New Delhi as PW2 and he proved the following
documents.
(a) Order dated 16.04.2015 passed by concerned AE (Building)
Central Zone after the matter was remanded back by AT MCD as Ex.
PW2/1.
(b) Order dated 04.12.2014 passed by AT MCD as Ex.
PW2/2.
(c) Noting sheet of hearing given to Sh. Devender Singh after
remand back of the matter as Ex. PW2/3.
(d) Representation dated 06.02.2015 on behalf of Devender Singh
as Ex. PW2/4.
(e) Additional objections dated 16.12.2014 filed by Sh. Devender
Singh as Ex. PW2/5.
(f) Order dated 01.10.2014 passed by concerned AE (Building)
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 13/40
Central Zone u/s 343 of DMC Act as Ex. PW2/6.
(g) Notice dated 22.08.2014 u/s 343/344 of DMC Act for personal
hearing to Sh. Devender Singh as Ex. PW2/7.
(h) FIR dated 08.08.2014 with regard to unauthorized construction
as Ex. PW2/8.
(i) First show cause notice u/s 344 and 343 of DMC Act dated
08.08.2014 as Ex. PW2/9.
(j) Reply dated 19.08.2014 to the Show Cause Notice issued by Sh.
Devender Singh as Ex. PW2/10.
(k) Noting sheet of initial hearing afforded to Sh. Devender Singh
after issuance of first show cause notice as Ex. PW2/11.
(l) Copy of order dated 26.09.2014 passed by AT MCD granting
interim protection to Sh. Devender Singh as Ex. PW2/12.
(m) Copy of appeal filed by Sh. Devender Singh before AT MCD,
as Ex. PW2/13.
(n) Second show cause notice dated 16.09.2014 under section 344
and 343 of DMC Act as Ex. PW2/14.
(o) Photocopies of photographs taken on 16.07.2014 during the
work got stopped at part second floor as Ex. PW2/15.
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 14/40
Defendant's evidence
9. As against this Defendant no. 3 and 4 examined defendant no. 3
as DW1 in their defence. DW1 Davinder Singh @ Shanti filed his evidence
by way of affidavit as Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the following
documents:
(a) Copy of Show Cause Notice dated 08.08.2014 as Ex. DW1/1.
(b) Copy of inquiry report dated 23.08.2014 passed by Public
Grievance Cell, ITO as Ex. DW1/2.
(c) Copy of order dated 04.12.2014 passed by MCD Tribunal as Ex.
DW1/3 and
(d) Copy of plaint filed by Sh. Sunil Sachdeva as Mark A.
10. Defendant no. 1 opted not to lead any evidence and defendant
no. 2 was proceeded exparte vide orders dated 27.11.2014.
Findings
11. I have heard the Ld. counsel for parties, have given due
consideration to the rival contentions raised at bar and have carefully gone
through the record. My issue wise finding is as under:
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 15/40
Issue no. 1, 2 3 and 4.
11.1 As all the issues are inter connected they are taken together and
the finding is as under:
11.2 In nutshell the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking to
restrain defendant no. 3 and 4 from raising unauthorized construction at the
suit property and further to direct defendant no. 1 to 4 to stop the illegal &
unauthorized construction at the suit property and to demolish the entire
unauthorized construction raised therein as well as to remove the
construction material and equipments from the same. It is her case that she
is the actual owner of the suit property and defendant no. 3 and 4 are merely
licensees. It is further her case that the unauthorized construction is being
carried out by defendant no. 3 and 4 in collusion and connivance with
defendant no. 1 and 2.
11.3 To prove the factum of unauthorized construction in the suit
property the plaintiff relied upon photographs Ex.PW1/A (colly) and the
complaints i.e. Ex. PW1/B (colly) lodged with various authorities vide
which factum of unauthorized construction was brought to their notice.
Plaintiff also examined the concerned JE as PW2 who proved various
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 16/40
documents including orders dated 01.10.2014 & 16.04.2015 passed by AE,
Building as Ex. PW2/6 and Ex. PW2/1, notice dated 22.07.2014 as Ex.
PW2/7 and photographs dated 16.07.2014 as Ex. PW2/15.
11.4 From the evidence led by the plaintiff and the documents i.e.
photographs and complaints as above its stands squarely established that
defendant no. 3 and 4 have indeed raised unauthorized and illegal
construction upon the suit property i.e. without obtaining any sanction plan
or permission from the concerned authorities as per the municipal bylaws.
11.5 The plaintiff categorically proved that after the illegal and
unauthorized construction was raised by defendant no. 3 and 4 she lodged
various complaints with various departments/authorities but no action was
taken. The complaints in this regard were proved as Ex. PW1/B (colly) and
they were addressed to the Lt. Governor of Delhi, the Deputy Commissioner
as well as Executive Engineer, MCD/SDMC. It is categorically mentioned
in these complaints that in May 2014 defendant no. 3 and 4 started raising
unauthorized and illegal construction and did not stop the same despite
repeated demands. The plaintiff placed on record photographs Ex. PW1/A
(colly) showing the nature and extent of unauthorized construction at the
suit property. It is writ large from the photographs that full fledged
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 17/40
construction was being raised at the suit property in the form of shuttering,
ballies and there was fresh lantern/roof constructed on two floors as well as
the balcony apart from staircase and partition walls.
11.6 JE R.P. Singh who was examined as PW2 also went on to prove
that defendant no. 3 and 4 had raised unauthorized and illegal construction
at the suit property during the relevant period. The JE proved on record
orders dated 16.04.2015 passed by Assistant Engineer (AE), Building
Department, Central Zone as Ex. PW2/1. These orders were passed by the
AE in pursuant to orders passed by Appellate Tribunal on 04.12.2014 i.e. Ex.
PW2/2. Defendant no. 3 had approached the Appellate Tribunal, MCD
challenging the demolition orders dated 16.09.2014 i.e. Ex. PW2/14 on
numerous grounds and the Appellate Tribunal was pleased to quash and set
aside the said orders and directed that the defendant be accorded an
opportunity to appear before the AE, Building and put forth his case. I have
gone through the said orders as well as Ex. PW2/1.
11.7 It is writ large from Ex. PW2/1, which were passed after
giving detailed hearing to the defendants in terms of the directions of the
Appellate Tribunal, that the construction raised at the suit property is indeed
unauthorized and illegal as alleged by the plaintiff. The relevant portion of
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 18/40
Ex. PW2/1 in this regard is reproduced hereunder:
"............The appellant during hearing and in his reply contended that alleged
unauthorized construction is old and protected under the "National Capital
Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act 2014 in view cutoff date of
protection, which has been extended up to 01/06/2014. The claim of the
appellant is untenable as said extension of date for protection does not cover the
plotted developments. The appellant also contended that only repair work was
carried out, which is permissible under Clause 6.4.1. of BBLs. The appellant in
his plaint had contended that notice served by respondent/SDMC did not reveal
the precise extent of alleged unauthorized construction.
The unauthorized constructions, as booked do not fall under permissible repairs under said clause and as such there is no force in the contention of the appellant. The Lajpat Nagar is a plotted development where development control norms are not debatable. The structure needs to come up after getting the building plan sanctioned. As regards precise extent of unauthorized construction, it is clarified that structures, which do not form part of sanctioned plan is unauthorized. The appellant did not file any authentic document to substantiate his claim that existing structure is old and no new structure has been added in the old structure. The copy of the property tax document of year 1985 presented by the appellant during earlier proceedings does not reveal the existence of alleged structure. The actual and original number of the property is C14, Lajpat NagarI. The property no. C1/14, Lajpat NagarI arising out of illegal subdivision of said plot.
After carefully considering the reports before me and having gone through the file and all the other relevant papers, I am satisfied that alleged structure, as booked vide aforesaid file, is unauthorized and liable to be demolished."
11.8 Therefore no doubt remains that defendant no. 3 and 4 have indeed raised unauthorized and illegal construction at the suit property i.e. without having obtained the necessary permission, sanctioned plan etc. from the concerned authorities/SDMC.
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 19/40 11.9 During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
no. 3 and 4 vehemently argued that plaintiff who has filed the present suit seeking relief of permanent and mandatory injunction is not entitled to those equitable reliefs as she has not only concealed & suppressed material facts from the court but her conduct itself is wrong. It was argued that she has not approached the court with clean hands and therefore she is not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction. It was argued that the plaintiff could not prove that she is the owner of the suit property or that defendant no. 3 and 4 are merely licensees. It was argued that infact the plaintiff had malafidely claimed herself to be the exclusive owner of the property despite knowing fully well that she is just one of the coowner of the suit property which is jointly owned by her and defendant no. 3 and 4 apart from other legal heirs. It was argued that the property belonged to the grandfather of parties upon whose demise it devolved upon the parents of the parties and subsequent to their death the plaintiff and the defendant became the owner. It was also argued that the plaintiff had also raised unauthorized construction in her share of the property and therefore when she herself has done wrong she cannot claim any equity. It was also one of the arguments that the malafide of the plaintiff is amply clear from the false declaration i.e. Ex. PW1/D1 made by her before the Public Grievances Cell, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as despite pendency of the present suit filed by her she CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 20/40 declared vide Ex. PW1/D1 that she has not filed any court case regarding the dispute nor any court cases pending before any court. It was argued that the plaintiff being guilty of misconduct and having tried to hoodwink the court is entitled to the equitable relief. However I find no merits in either of the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3 and 4. 11.10 Undoubtedly the law is well settled that a person who seeks equity, must do equity and that a person who seeks equitable relief must come with clean hands and act in a equitable and fair manner. The Court denies the relief to a suitor who is himself guilty of misconduct in respect of the matter in controversy. It is wellknown maxim of equity that "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands," or as otherwise expressed, "He that hath committed inequity shall not have equity". Reliance may be placed upon the law laid down in Canara Bank and Ors. v. Debasis Das and Ors AIR 2003 SCW 1561, M/s Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. v. State Bank of India , AIR 1992 Delhi 197, Mahabir Prasad Jain v. Ganga Singh , AIR 1999 SC 3873, Kimti Lal Rahi v. Union of India , AIR 1993 Delhi 211 and Champa Arora & Ors. vs. Shiv Lal Arora & Ors . 2001 VII AD (Delhi) 602. Thus the law is well settled that the person who himself is guilty of a wrongdoing or misconduct or has not approached the court CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 21/40 with clean hands is not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction as a matter of right however, the court may in the given facts and circumstances of a case may still exercise the discretion in favour of that person to curb the larger evil.
11.11 In the case at hand I find no reasons to not to grant the relief of injunctions as prayed for by the plaintiff. As far as the arguments that the plaintiff could not prove ownership of the suit property are concerned, no doubt the plaintiff could not prove that she is the owner or the exclusive owner of the suit property however the present suit being simplicitor for permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants from raising unauthorized construction as well as to remove the unauthorized construction already raised it was not incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish her ownership in respect of the suit property. 11.12 The suit being filed seeking the relief of injunction simplicitor the court would not hold a roving inquiry into the title of the parties. Ownership is irrelevant to the matter in controversy. Admittedly the plaintiff is one of the coowner/owner of the suit property and she is admittedly residing in the rear portion of the suit property. No doubt she did not file the CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 22/40 ownership documents vide which she became the owner of the property or the documents vide which the property devolved upon her but from the cross examination of the plaintiff i.e. PW1 and the suggestions given to her no doubt remains that she is one of the coowner of the suit property and has a right in the same. Atleast defendant no. 3 and 4 did not deny her right in the suit property. The suggestions which prove the same are "It is correct that the suit property has been jointly inherited by all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Gurbachan Singh............It is correct that I am residing in the suit property with my one brother...........It is correct that Gurbachan Singh was my father.........It is correct that I am living in the suit property since the allotment.......The property was allotted to my father at the time of partition."
11.13 So not only she is one of the coowner but also residing in one portion/part of the suit property. The law is well settled that even the neighbor whose rights are affected due to unauthorized construction can file a civil suit for restraining the unauthorized construction. It is the right of every citizen to see that building bylaws are followed and unauthorized constructions are not carried out in the neighborhood as same causes civil problems for the entire neighborhood and affects the material rights of the neighborers. Therefore she definitely has a right to maintain the present suit CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 23/40 irrespective whether she is the owner of the suit property or not. Reliance may be placed upon the law laid down in Onkar Nath, Petitioner Vs. Ram Nath Gupta, AIR 1985 Delhi 293 , Krishna Kali Mallik Vs. Babu Lal Shaw, AIR 1965 Cal 148 and Smt. And Lhamu Vs. Smt. Ladena, AIR 1983 Sikkim 5.
11.14 Unauthorized construction is a menace. At this stage it will be pertinent to highlight the observations made by Hon. Apex Court in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors decided on 08.10.2012 wherein it has been held as under: "Unauthorized construction of buildings not only destroys the concept of planned development which is beneficial to the public but also places unbearable burden on the basic amenities and facilities provided by the public authorities. At times, construction of such buildings becomes hazardous for the public and creates traffic congestion. Therefore, it is imperative for the concerned public authorities not only to demolish such construction but also impose adequate penalty on the wrongdoer. In last four decades, the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions of buildings and other structures in different parts of the country has acquired monstrous proportion. This Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of planned development of the cities and either approved the orders passed by the High Court or itself gave directions for demolition of illegal constructions (1) K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council (1974) 2 SCC 506; (2) Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577; (3) Pleasant Stay Hotel v. Palani Hills Conservation Council (1995) 6 SCC 127; (4) Cantonment Board, Jabalpur v. S.N. Awasthi 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 595; (5) Pratibha Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (1991) 3 SCC 341; (6) G.N. Khajuria (Dr) v. Delhi Development Authority (1995) 5 SCC 762; (7) Manju Bhatia v. New Delhi Municipal Council (1997) 6 SCC 370; (8) M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464; (9) Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 24/40 Orissa (2004) 8 SCC 733; (10) Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 705 and (11) Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam (2010) 2 SCC 27.
3. In K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council (supra), this Court observed as under: "An illegal construction of a cinema building materially affects the right to or enjoyment of the property by persons residing in the residential area. The Municipal Authorities owe a duty and obligation under the statute to see that the residential area is not spoilt by unauthorised construction....... The Court enforces the performance of statutory duty by public bodies as obligation to rate payers who have a legal right to demand compliance by a local authority with its duty to observe statutory rights alone. The Scheme here is for the benefit of the public. There is special interest in the performance of the duty. All the residents in the area have their personal interest in the performance of the duty. The special and substantial interest of the residents in the area is injured by the illegal construction............."
5. In Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa (supra), this Court noted that ........... Though the local authorities have the staff consisting of engineers and inspectors whose duty is to keep a watch on building activities and to promptly stop the illegal constructions or deviations coming up, they often fail in discharging their duty. Either they don't act or do not act promptly or do connive at such activities apparently for illegitimate considerations. If such activities are to stop some stringent actions are required to be taken by ruthlessly demolishing the illegal constructions and noncompoundable deviations.............
6. In Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India (supra), this Court approved the order of the Delhi High Court which had declared the construction of sports complex by the appellant on the land acquired for planned development of Delhi to be illegal and observed:
"In the last four decades, almost all cities, big or small, have seen unplanned growth. In the 21st century, the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions and encroachments has acquired monstrous proportions and everyone has been paying heavy price for the same. Economically affluent people and those having support of the political and executive apparatus of the State have constructed buildings, commercial complexes, multiplexes, malls, etc. in blatant violation of the municipal and town planning laws, master plans, zonal development plans and even the sanctioned building plans. In most of the cases of illegal or unauthorised constructions, the officers of the municipal and other regulatory bodies turn blind CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 25/40 eye either due to the influence of higher functionaries of the State or other extraneous reasons............. The people belonging to this class do not realise that the constructions made in violation of the relevant laws, master plan or zonal development plan or sanctioned building plan or the building is used for a purpose other than the one specified in the relevant statute or the master plan, etc., such constructions put unbearable burden on the public facilities/amenities like water, electricity, sewerage, etc. apart from creating chaos on the roads................ This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasised that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme, etc. on the ground that he has spent substantial amount on construction of the buildings, etc. Unfortunately, despite repeated judgments by this Court and the High Courts, the builders and other affluent people engaged in the construction activities, who have, over the years shown scant respect for regulatory mechanism envisaged in the municipal and other similar laws, as also the master plans, zonal development plans, sanctioned plans, etc., have received encouragement and support from the State apparatus. As and when the Courts have passed orders or the officers of local and other bodies have taken action for ensuring rigorous compliance with laws relating to planned development of the cities and urban areas and issued directions for demolition of the illegal/unauthorised constructions, those in power have come forward to protect the wrongdoers either by issuing administrative orders or enacting laws for regularisation of illegal and unauthorised constructions in the name of compassion and hardship. Such actions have done irreparable harm to the concept of planned development of the cities and urban areas. It is high time that the executive and political apparatus of the State take serious view of the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions and stop their support to the lobbies of affluent class of builders and others, else even the rural areas of the country will soon witness similar chaotic conditions."
7. In Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam (supra), this Court refused to order regularisation of the illegal construction raised by the appellant and observed:
"It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. Such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands otherwise builders/colonisers would continue to build or construct beyond the sanctioned and approved plans and would still go scotfree. Ultimately, it is the flat owners who fall prey to such activities as the ultimate desire of a common man is to have a shelter of his own. Such unlawful constructions are definitely against the public interest and CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 26/40 hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multistoreyed buildings. To some extent both parties can be said to be equally responsible for this. Still the greater loss would be of those flat owners whose flats are to be demolished as compared to the builder."
8. What needs to be emphasised is that illegal and unauthorised constructions of buildings and other structure not only violate the municipal laws and the concept of planned development of the particular area but also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons.
11.15 [1999 (6) SCC In M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu 464] made in a different context the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "This Court in numerous decisions has held that no consideration should be shown to the builder or any other person where construction is unauthorized. This dicta is now almost bordering the rule of law......... Unauthorised construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion cannot be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters.
"
11.16 In the case titled as Smt. Marriamma Vs. C.P. Thomas AIR 2003 NOC 483 (Ker.) it has been observed that when a citizen starts construction in violation of municipal regulations, a single individual can file a simple suit for injunction to restrain the wrongdoer from proceeding with such an illegal act.
11.17 Reliance may also be placed upon the law laid down in Onkar Nath (Supra), Krishna Kali Mallik (Supra), Smt. And Lhamu (Supra) CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 27/40 and K. Ramadas Shenoy Vs. Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Udipi, AIR 1974 SC 2177, it was observed as under: "..........The Municipal Authorities owe a duty and obligation under the statute to see that the residential area is not spoil by unauthorised construction. The scheme is for the benefit of the residents of the locality. The Municipality acts in aid of the scheme. The rights of the residents in the area are invaded by an illegal construction......."
11.18 In Okhla Factory Owners's Association (Regd.)& Anr. vs. The Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.;108(2003) DLT 517 (DB) while relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1997) 11 SCC 121 it was held that:
"No one has a right to make use of public property for private purpose and that it is the duty of the competent authorities to remove encroachments which are a constant source of unhygienic conditions, ecological problems, traffic hazard and a risk even to pedestrians.
11.19 As far as the arguments that the plaintiff could not prove that defendant no. 3 and 4 are her licensees in the suit property suffice would be to say that the said relationship is not germane to the adjudication of the dispute at hand. No doubt the plaintiff could not prove that defendant no. 3 and 4 are the licensees but the said relationship between the parties has no CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 28/40 bearing or significance on the outcome of the present case. The court is not concerned about the status or right of defendant no. 3 and 4 in the suit property but is merely concerned with the aspect of "unauthorized construction" in the suit property. Even if defendant no. 3 and 4 are the co owners of the suit property it does not give them any right to raise illegal and unauthorized construction in the same. For raising any construction in the capacity of the owner or for that matter in any capacity they have to seek the permission from the concerned authorities as well as comply with the applicable statutory bylaws.
11.20 Though Ld. Counsel had argued that the plaintiff suppressed material facts and malafidely claimed herself to be the exclusive owner despite knowing fully well that defendants are also the coowners of their shares and therefore she cannot claim the equitable relief of injunction however I do not agree with the contentions of Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3 and 4. No doubt plaintiff could not prove her absolute ownership in the suit property or how the property devolved upon her nor the documents of allotment were furnished however let that be the case even the defendants could not establish their rights so as to prove that the plaintiff had deposed falsely or malafidely claimed herself to be the exclusive owner. The plaintiff during her cross examination and in paramateria with her pleadings CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 29/40 categorically and repeatedly denied that defendant no. 3 and 4 are the co owners or that the property devolved upon them just like the same devolved upon the plaintiff. She categorically denied that the property belonged to Gian Singh or was allotted to him or that Gian Singh was the grandfather of the plaintiff and defendant no. 3 and 4 and went on to state that she has no relation with them. Defendant no. 3 and 4 could not even remotely establish their ownership or coownership rights or documents vide which the property devolved upon them though they had the necessary means and opportunities to prove the same. The court need not delve upon how the defendant could have proved the same. Moreover as already discussed above ownership of either of parties is of no significance.
11.21 Though Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3 and 4 had also argued that the plaintiff had herself raised unauthorized and illegal construction in her share of the property however the defendant no. 3 and 4 miserably failed to prove the same. No photographs, no complaints to the police or the local authorities could be proved in this regard by them. They did not even bother to examine anybody from the municipality/MCD to prove their claims of unauthorized construction raised by the plaintiff. The plaintiff categorically denied raising any unauthorized construction and stated during her cross examination that "It is wrong to suggest that I had also carried out CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 30/40 construction in the suit property on the ground floor in the year 2015. I had merely carried out the repair hence I did not seek any permission from the MCD." The defendants could not contradict the stand of the plaintiff. The factum of unauthorized construction being raised by the plaintiff being not proved by the defendants there is nothing to doubt her bonafide or to believe that she has not approached the court with clean hands.
11.22 As far as Ex. PW1/D1 i.e. declaration made before the Public Grievances Cell is concerned it is to be seen that there is no date on Ex. PW1/D1. It is not clear when the said declaration was made by the plaintiff before the Public Grievances Cell. During the cross examination of the plaintiff, though she was confronted with the said document, however neither in the cross examination nor during the trial did defendant no. 3 and 4 gave the date when that declaration was made before the Public Grievances Cell. It was not even once suggested to her during the cross examination that she gave the declaration after the filing of the present suit. In the absence of date of declaration i.e. when the declaration was made before the Public Grievances Cell it cannot be held that the plaintiff made a false declaration. The question of false declaration would have arose if the date would have been mentioned/given by defendant no. 3 and 4 and it would have come up on record/proved by them that the said declaration was CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 31/40 indeed given after the filing of the present suit i.e. 24.05.2014. In the absence of the same I find no reasons to hold that the plaintiff is guilty of misconduct. Furthermore even if there is some misconduct, though not proved by defendant no. 3 and 4, as discussed above that the court can still grant the relief of injunction to a party even if there has been some concealment or wrongdoing by it, if the court deems it necessary in the interest of justice, larger public interest and to curb the larger evil. In this case the evil being the menace of unauthorized construction which is rampant and reducing the National Capital to a slum.
11.23 Though Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 3 and 4 had also argued that the plaintiff has no title or interest in the suit property as she has already sold the same to one Sunil Kumar however defendant no. 3 and 4 failed to prove the same. The plaintiff during her cross examination categorically denied having sold her share of the property to the said builder namely Sunil Kumar. Though the defendants relied upon copy of one civil suit bearing no. 194/2014 titled as Sunil Kumar Sachdeva Vs. Devender Kaur filed by Sunil Kumar i.e. Mark A to prove that the plaintiff had sold her share of the property to said Sunil Kumar however Mark A does not even remotely prove the same. The said suit has not been filed against the plaintiff. Plaintiff is not a party therein and the defendant no. 3 and 4 have CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 32/40 not been able to prove that since the filing of the said suit till date any efforts have been made to implead the plaintiff in the said suit. Furthermore the suit has been filed merely for recovery of Rs. 5 lacs and it is not a suit for specific performance of the contract, for purchase of or to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property. Hence there is nothing to suggest that the plaintiff had sold her share of the property to the said builder or for that matter to anyone else.
11.24 Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.3 and 4 had also argued that no illegal or unauthorized construction was being raised at the suit property and instead only permissible repair work was being carried out. It was argued that as per bylaws no. 6.4.1 of the Building ByeLaws 1983 no permission is required for the plastering and patch repairs, coroofing or renewal of roof, flooring and reflooring, opening and closing windows, ventilation and doors not opening towards other's properties, replacing of columns, bricks/stones/pillars/beams etc., construction or reconstruction of sunsheds, construction or reconstructions of parapets exceeding one meter and more than 1.5 meters in heights, construction or reconstruction of boundary walls, reconstruction of portions of building damaged by rains, storms, fire, earth quakes and any other natural calamities, white washing, painting, etc., erection of false ceilings, erection and reerection of internal CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 33/40 portions provided the same are within the preview of bylaws. It was argued that the work undertaken by the defendant no. 3 and 4 is the one falling under the permissible limits and therefore no permission was required. It was also one of the arguments that even otherwise the repair work/construction so allegedly raised is protected in view of The National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act 2014. 11.25 As far as the arguments that only repair and the renovation work was being carried out is concerned, there is no dispute that no permission is required to carry out repairs and renovations which do not violate the bye laws. The relevant provision/regulation of Building Byelaws applicable for the 'development areas' of the Delhi Development Authority within the Union Territory of DelhiBuilding ByeLaws, 1983 are reproduced hereunder: 6.4 Notice for Alteration Only When the notice is only for an alteration of the building (See Bye1awNo. 3.5), only such plans and statement as may be necessary, shall accompany the notice .
4~ No notice and building permit is necessary for the following alterations, which do not otherwise violate any provisions regarding general building requirements, structural stability and fire safety requirements ofthe ByeIaws:
a) Plastering and patch repairs;
b) Reroofing or renewal of roof including roof of intermediate floor at the same height;
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 34/40
c) Flooring and reflooring;
d) Opening and closing windows, ventilators and doors not opening towards other's
property;
e) replacing fallen bricks, stones, pillars, beams etc.;
f) construction or reconstruction of sunshade not more than 75cm in width within
one's own land and not overhanging over a public street;
g) Construction or reconstruction of parapet exceeding 1 m and not more than 1.5 m in height and also construction or reconstruction of boundary walls as permissible under these Byelaws;
h) reconstruction. of portions of buildings damaged by storm, rains, fire, earthquake or any other natural calamity to the same extent and specification as existed prior to the damage, provided the use conforms to provisions of Master Plan;
i) White washing, painting etc. including erection of false ceiling in any floor at the permissible clear height provided the false ceiling in no way can be put to use as a 10ft/mezzanine etc.; and
j) erection or reerection of internal partitions provided the same are within the preview of the Byelaws .."
11.26 However the work undertaken by the defendant no. 3 and 4 at the suit property was not the one as is covered under the building bylaws as above and it was for this reason that the Assistant Engineer had passed the demolition orders Ex. PW2/1 as have been discussed in detail above. The Assistant Engineer categorically observed that the defendant no. 3 (appellant therein) could not substantiate the claim that the existing structure is an old one and that no new structure has been added. The Assistant Engineer CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 35/40 further held that the property tax documents of the year 1985 presented by defendant no. 3 does not reveal the existence of existing structure. Apart from the orders Ex. PW2/1 it is writ large from the photographs that the work undertaken by the defendant no. 3 and 4 was in fact a full fledged fresh construction and not minor repair and renovation work as claimed. It is not mere reroofing or renewal of roof which presupposes the existence of a roof. It is a case of fresh roof being casted/constructed. As is visible in the photographs the balcony has been extended, a new balcony constructed, there are new walls and staircase. New columns/pillars are being erected. This cannot be held to be a mere repair work.
11.27 Though Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3 and 4 had also argued that no reliance can be placed upon the photographs as they were not proved as per the Evidence Act and in the absence of photographs there is no other proof of the alleged unauthorized construction. However I do not agree with the contentions raised by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3 and 4. To begin with no objection was raised at the time when the photographs were exhibited by the plaintiff during her testimony. These photographs are on record as Ex. PW1/A (colly). Not even a single suggestion was given to the plaintiff/PW1 that the photographs are doctored. I have gone through the law laid down by Hon. Apex Court in Anvar PV Vs. P.K. Bashir 2014 10 CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 36/40 SCC 473. No doubt the negatives of the photographs were not proved and it was not explained as to whether the photographs were taken from a digital camera or otherwise however even if these photographs are held as not proved as per the Evidence Act still the plaintiff has been able to prove the factum of unauthorized construction independent of these photographs. The unauthorized construction in the suit property stands proved in view of the categoric deposition of the plaintiff, JE who deposed that during routine demolition programme construction activity was found at the suit property on 16.07.2014, orders dated 16.04.2015 passed by the AE i.e. Ex. PW2/1, Written Statement of the defendant no. 1 i.e. SDMC, the photographs filed by the defendants themselves along with their application u/s 152 CPC whereby they sought permission to replaster the suit property and also the written statement of defendant no. 3 and 4 wherein they admitted that certain construction was carried out at the suit property. No doubt it was claimed that minor repair work was being carried out and the same was a permissible one however as discussed above it stands proved that it was not minor repair work but a full fledged construction.
11.28 As far as the protection claimed by the defendant no. 3 and 4 under The National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act 2014 is concerned the defendant no. 3 and 4 are not entitled to any such CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 37/40 protection. The said aspect was duly dealt with by the Assistant Engineer vide Ex. PW2/1 wherein it was held that Lajpat Nagar is a plotted development where development control norms are not debatable and the above act does not cover the plotted developments. In addition to the same it is to be seen that as held by the Assistant Engineer that the cutoff date as per the said Act is 01.06.2014 and it is only available for unauthorized colonies. The construction was commenced by defendant no. 3 and 4 somewhere in May 2014 and it was continued beyond 01.06.2014 as is evident from the action taken by MCD and the Show Cause Notices dated 16.09.2014 Ex. PW2/14 and orders dated 22.08.2014 Ex. PW2/7, 04.12.2014 Ex. PW2/2 etc. as well as the photographs filed by the plaintiff and the JE i.e. Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW2/15 respectively. To be entitled to the protection if any no construction should have been raised beyond 01.06.2014. 11.29 It was also one of the arguments that the entire action taken by the MCD/SDMC/Defendant no. 1 was illegal and the Show Cause Notice was not a proper one. It was argued that the property could not be identified properly and the Show Cause Notice were in fact issued in respect of property no. C14 and not C1/14 which is the suit property as per the plaintiff's case. It was argued that the suit property is C1/14 whereas the Show Cause Notices were issued in respect of property no. C14. However I CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 38/40 do not find any merits in the said contentions of the Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3 and 4. There is no dispute as to the identity of the suit property. The parties are well aware of the suit property and the action as has been taken in respect of the unauthorized construction raised at the suit property. As far as C14 or C1/14 i.e. the dispute regarding property number suffice would be to say that the said aspect has already been dealt with by the Assistant Engineer who held vide his orders Ex. PW2/1 that the actual and original number is C14 and the property no. C1/14 is arising out of illegal subdivision of the plot. It is not disputed that the plaintiff and the defendants and the other alleged coowners/legal heirs have subdivided the property and are residing in their respective/different shares. The plaintiff is residing in the rear portion and the defendant no. 3 and 4 in the front. It is on account of this division/interse arrangement between the coowner/legal heirs that the number/ description of the property is given as C1/14 whereas the property number in actual is C14. Otherwise also as discussed above the numbers have no significance as the property stands duly identified.
12. In view above discussion all the issues no. 1 to 4 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 39/40 Relief
13. As all the issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed. Defendant no. 3 and 4 are restrained from raising any further construction at the suit property. Defendant no. 1 and 2 shall ensure compliance of the same which otherwise they are duty bound to do. Defendant no.3 and 4 are granted one months time to remove the unauthorized and illegal construction so raised along with the building material and the machinery deployed for construction at their own cost, failing which defendant no. 1 shall demolish the unauthorized construction and recovered the cost of the same from defendant no. 3 and 4. Defendant no. 2 shall provide necessary police assistance and security to the officials of defendant no. 1 as and when the request is made. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gaurav Rao)
Announced in the open court SCJCumRC(SouthEast)
rd
on 3 September 2016. Distt.Courts, Saket,New Delhi.
CS No. 50285/2016 Narinder Kaur Vs. SDMC and ors 40/40