Delhi District Court
Vide This Order vs Unknown on 11 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS.RUCHIKA SINGLA
CIVIL JUDGE-01(NORTH) : DELHI
M No.75/2009
SUSHIL KUMAR v. RAMWATI
Present : None
ORDER:
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off defendant's application u/o XXXIX rule 2A CPC r/w Section 151 CPC r/w Section 10 & 12 of Contempt of the Court. Plaintiff had filed the reply to this application. I have heard the arguments of both the parties.
2. It is the case of the petitioner i.e. defendant that the main suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction that he may be allowed to carry on the necessary renovation work in the suit premises and the defendant may be restrained from causing any obstruction in the renovation so undertaken by the plaintiff. The injunction application was allowed on 04.4.2005. The suit was also decreed in favour of the plaintiff. However, it is argued by the defendants that the plaintiff misused the injunction order granted to him and instead of carrying out renovation, the plaintiff demolished the old walls and raised a new construction including 2 rooms, latrine, boundary walls etc. Hence, it is submitted that the plaintiff is guilty of contempt and hence, contempt proceedings be initiated against the plaintiff.
Sushil Kumar v. Ramwati M No.75 2009 Page 1 of 63. Counsel for plaintiff in turn argued that no contempt of the court has been done by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the court had allowed the plaintiff to carry on the renovation work in the suit premises. The tin sheets which were placed on the roof of the premises had got old and damaged and hence, it was necessary that they be replaced. While the tin sheets were being replaced, the walls of one room collapsed as the same could not bear the burden of the workers who were going on the roof. As the walls of one room had fallen, walls of the other room also got cracks and plaintiff finding no other option brought down the walls of this room also. It is submitted that the re-building of these rooms was necessary to provide shelter to the plaintiff and his family members. However, the plaintiff did not touch the kitchen. As regards to latrine and both rooms only tin sheets have been replaced with a new stone roof. Hence, it is prayed that the work which has been carried out was out of utmost necessity and that he has not undertaken any new construction. Hence, it is prayed that the application may be allowed.
4. Following issues were framed vide order dated 31.7.2002:
1. Whether the plaintiff has intentionally violated the order dated 21.9.1998 in making new construction instead of doing repairs?OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff was justified in raising a new construction on the ground mentioned in the reply as there was a necessity to rebuilt the same portion due to the collapse of the portion under repair?OPD.
3. Whether the application of the contempt is not maintainable?OPP.
4. Whether the new construction allegedly raised is required to be demolished/removed?OPD.Sushil Kumar v. Ramwati M No.75 2009 Page 2 of 6
5. Whether the plaintiff is liable for punishment if it is proved that contempt had been committed and if it is held in positive then what punishment should be imposed?OPD.
6. Relief.
5. Evidence was also lead in the present contempt petition and Sh.Suresh Kr. Sharma was examined as RW1. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and my issues wise findings are as follows.
Issue no.2 Whether the plaintiff was justified in raising a new construction on the ground mentioned in the reply as there was a necessity to rebuilt the same portion due to the collapse of the portion under repair?OPD.
6. Onus to prove this issue was upon defendant.
7. It is an admitted fact that 2 rooms were re-built by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has alleged that these rooms were built out of necessity as some portion had to be repaired. Walls of one room had collapsed and the walls in the other room and had developed cracks. Thus, the walls of the room had to be brought down. Hence, the rooms were to be rebuilt. Further, the tin roof of the bathroom, latrine, was in a bad condition and was replaced by a stone roof.
8. It has to be examined whether so called repairs which where Sushil Kumar v. Ramwati M No.75 2009 Page 3 of 6 undertaken by the plaintiff were actually needed or not. Repairs means that a person can take steps for amending an existing structure. Undertaking repairs does not entitle a person to make structural changes in the property. There is a vast difference between repair and structural changes.
9. The plaintiff has alleged that during replacement of tin sheets on the roof of one room, wall of that room could not bear the weight of the workers. Removal or replacement of tin sheets also does not fall within the purview of repairs as discussed above. Repair includes merely amending the existing structure. The plaintiff cannot have replaced the tin sheets under the permission of the so called repairs. Removal and replacement of sheets itself is a structural change. However, even if it is considered to be a repair, then also the plaintiff should have taken safety measures so that the walls of the rooms did not collapse.
10. Even if it is argued that the replacement of the walls of that room was not done intentionally, the plaintiff could not have, on its own accord, broken down the walls of the adjacent room. This cannot be called repairs under the ground of necessity. If the plaintiff wanted to break down the walls of the other room, then the he should have taken the permission of the landlord which has not been done in the present case.
11. Moreover, again the plaintiff has admitted that he got tin sheets on the latrine and bathroom replaced with a stone roof which is again a structural change. It cannot be called repairs. Hence, this issue is decided in Sushil Kumar v. Ramwati M No.75 2009 Page 4 of 6 favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue No.1 Whether the plaintiff has intentionally violated the order dated 21.9.1998 in making new construction instead of doing repairs?OPP.
12. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff.
13. In view of the above discussion, the court is satisfied that the plaintiff has intentionally violated the order dated 21.9.1998 in making new construction in lieu of repairs. If any new construction or structural change was said to be done by the plaintiff, the permission of the landlord should have been taken. The plaintiff was authorized by the court only to undertake repairs. In the garb of this order, the plaintiff changed the whole structure of the suit property. Hence, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff and favour of the defendant.
Issue no.4 & 5 Whether the new construction allegedly raised is required to be demolished/removed?OPD.
Whether the plaintiff is liable for punishment if it is proved that contempt had been committed and if it is held in positive then what punishment should be imposed?OPD.
14. Onus to prove these issues was upon defendant.
15. As it has already been discussed above that a new construction Sushil Kumar v. Ramwati M No.75 2009 Page 5 of 6 has been done in violation of the order of the court in the garb of taking repairs, these issues are also decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue no.3 Whether the application of the contempt is not maintainable?OPP.
16. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff.
17. The plaintiff has argued that this application is not maintainable as no contempt was committed by the plaintiff. However, as discussed in the above issues, the plaintiff was not authorized to undertake new construction as done by him. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant.
Relief In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff had committed contempt by misusing the order which was passed in his favour. Hence, the plaintiff is directed to remove and demolish the unauthorized construction within 6 weeks from today and file a report thereafter. Costs of Rs.10,000/- are also imposed upon the plaintiff for his wrongful conduct.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court [RUCHIKA SINGLA] Today on 11.5.2011 CIVIL JUDGE-01 (NORTH) Sushil Kumar v. Ramwati M No.75 2009 Page 6 of 6 DELHI Sushil Kumar v. Ramwati M No.75 2009 Page 7 of 6