Delhi High Court
Priyam Vada Goel Through Sanjay Raju ... vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd (Bypl) And Ors. on 19 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No.83/2014
% 19th March, 2014
PRIYAM VADA GOEL THROUGH SANJAY RAJU GOEL ....Appellant
Through: Ms. Babita Seth, Advocate.
VERSUS
BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD (BYPL) AND ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. Nos.4977/2014 and 4978/2014 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M.s stand disposed of.
+ RSA No.83/2014 and C.M. No.4976/2014 (stay)
2. This is a Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the concurrent judgments of the Courts below; of the trial Court dated 26.10.2012 and the first RSA No.83/2014 Page 1 of 3 appellate Court dated 7.11.2013; by which the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for mandatory injunction for directions to the respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant Nos.2 to 4 to remove their electricity meters which are installed in the common passage of the property Nos.4796, 4797 and 4799, Ram Bazar Cloth market, Delhi has been dismissed.
3. Both the Courts below note that it is the undisputed case that the staircase is common and staircase is not exclusively owned by the appellant/plaintiff. Once the staircase is not exclusively owned by the appellant/plaintiff and it is owned by other persons (also who are not made parties to the suit) the fixing of meters in the common staircase cannot be denied to the defendants. Appellant's/plaintiff's entitlement for injunction can only be if she was the exclusive owner of the staircase and admittedly she is not. On a query, counsel for the appellant, who has for some strange reasons not filed the pleadings of the Court below, admits that owners of the adjoining property bearing Nos.4800 and 4801 are in fact her landlords because the appellant/plaintiff is the tenant in the adjoining property bearing Nos.4800 and 4801 with which property there is the common staircase. Really therefore, exclusive right is claimed to a portion by denying the right of user or benefit to other co-owners or their nominees, and which is RSA No.83/2014 Page 2 of 3 impermissible in law, more so because deliberately it appears that other co- owners of the staircase i.e owners of property bearing Nos.4800-4801 were not made as parties/defendants in the suit.
4. The Courts below have noted that it is not understood how the appellant/plaintiff in any manner will be prejudiced or caused loss by fixing of electricity meters in the common staircase and where other meters also already exist.
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MARCH 19, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
RSA No.83/2014 Page 3 of 3