Delhi District Court
Shri Arun Rajput vs Pushkar Ram on 20 July, 2009
(Page no.1)
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE/WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 425/08
SHRI ARUN RAJPUT ...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PUSHKAR RAM ...DEFENDANT
ORDER
1. Vide this Order, this court shall dispose of an application u/o XXXIX rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC.
2. Adumberated in brief, facts relevant for disposal of the present application are:-
3. The Plaintiffs are co-owners and co-landlord of the property bearing no. 5A/36, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi and the defendant is admittedly lawful tenant under the plaintiff in respect of portion i.e. shop at Ground Floor bearing Private shop no. 5, forming part of property bearing no. 5A/35, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi at the monthly rent of Rs. 3000/- excluding electricity charges. The tenant premises is in occupation of the defendant shown in red colour in the annexed site plan. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the defendant without permission of the plaintiffs on 14.11.08 brought the building material in order to (Page no.2) make additions, alterations, deviations or to carry out unauthorised construction in the existing structure on account of resistance put forward by the plaintiffs, defendant could not succeeded. The plaintiff has apprehension that if the defendant is not restrained then he would make additions, alterations and deviations to the tenanted premises and would also raised unauthorised construction in the suit property which cannot be allowed. Hence this injunction application of the plaintiff to restrain the defendant from creating any additions, alterations or deviations in the existing structure or raising any unauthorised construction in the suit property/tenanted premises bearing private shop no. 5, forming part of property bearing no. 5A/36, Ground Floor, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi-18 as shown in red colour in the site plan till final disposal of the suit.
4. Written statement/reply to the injunction application filed by defendant in which it has been stated by the defendant that plaintiffs are neither co-owner nor co-landlord of the suit property and it has also been denied that the rent of the suit property is Rs. 3000/- as alleged by the plaintiff.
5. It is further stated by the defendant that he has not tried to make any additions, alterations or unauthorised construction in the disputed premises and he is only making some necessary repairs as the internal plaster of the shop has started pealing of (Page no.3) with the consent of the plaintiff.
6. Arguments advanced by both the Ld. Counsels heard. Record perused carefully. I have also examined the defendant in person orally, when he submitted that he is not making any unauthorised construction but only carried out necessary repair in the tenanted premises.
7. In view thereof, this court is of the view that for grant of relief of injunction being a discretionary and equitable relief has to be decided on touch stone of three basic principles:
i) Prima Facie Case in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ii) Balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
iii)Irreparable loss and injury would be caused which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
8. The plaintiff is admittedly the landlord of the defendant and thus has every right to deal with the property in any way he wants to. Also it is submitted by the plaintiff that before carrying out the necessary repairs as alleged by the defendant his permission was not sought. The defendants are admittedly tenants and have been using the premises whatever necessary repairs are sought to be carried out by the defendants can be done by resorting to other remedy available under the DRC Act, which specifically provides for carrying out necessary repairs and alterations in the (Page no.4) tenanted premises by the tenants on various grounds. It is not as if no other remedies are available to the tenant/defendant for carrying out the necessary repair and they are free to resort to the same. Thus plaintiff being the landlord has prima facie case in his favour as he being owner of the property nobody should be allowed to raise unauthorised construction or even necessary repairs without his due permission.
9. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Also no irreparable loss would be caused to the defendant as he has other remedies available with him under various other provisions of relevant statutes.
10. Thus this court is of the view that the application of the plaintiff is allowed as prima facie case has been made out in his favour. Accordingly, defendant is hereby restrained from making any additions, alterations or deviations in the existing structure or raising any unauthorised construction in the suit property/tenanted premises without due process of law. Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC is accordingly disposed of.
11. Nothing contained herein shall tantamount to expression of this court on the merits of the case and shall be without prejudice to the right, title and interest of both the parties.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (CHETNA SINGH) ON 16th Day of July 2009 CIVIL JUDGE/WEST All pages signed.