Delhi District Court
Sh.Kishori Lal S/O Sh.Yad Ram vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 6 October, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV JAIN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL DISTRICT) DELHI
Suit no.432/04 (I.D.No.02401C5739452004)
Date of Institution: 04.04.92
Final Arguments heard on :14.09.09
Date of Decision: 06.10.09
Sh.Kishori Lal s/o Sh.Yad Ram,
House No.193334, Gali no.43,
Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5
.... Plaintiff.
Vs.
1.Municipal Corporation of Delhi
through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, Delhi6
2.Sh.R.P.Bhardwaj, JE(Buildings)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Karol Bagh Zone, New Delhi5
3.Sh.B.R.Malhotral
Zonal Engineer(building)
Municipal Corp.of Delhi.
1
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
.... Defendants.
JUDGMENT
1 In brief, Sh.Kishori Lal son of Sh.Yad Ram (hereinafter referred as 'plaintiff') filed the suit for recovery of damages of Rs.6 lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum.
2 Briefly, it is disclosed in the plaint that plaintiff is the absolute owner and landlord of property bearing house no.193334, situated in Gali no.43, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in Ward No.XVI (hereinafter referred as "suit property"). The suit property was purchased by plaintiff in the year 1970 from Smt.Champa vide registered sale deed dt.15.5.70. The suit property was in a dilapidated condition. Plaintiff applied for sanction plan for 2 reconstruction of old building with basement and the sanctioned plan was granted vide order dt.7.1.87. Plaintiff demolished the entire building including existed shutters and reconstructed the same strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. In the reconstructed building, plaintiff installed three rolling shutter (for protection of his property) in place of usual wooden doors as in the opinion of the plaintiff wooden doors would not have been proper to protect his property and costly goods stored in the premises.
Plaintiff was engaged in manufacturing leather goods at large scale and was selling the same in different states of India. He was also residing in the suit premises along with his family members. Plaintiff was running his business in the name and style of M/s.Geeta Footwear Industry and a license was granted to run the said industry by defendant no.1. The plaintiff firm was also recognised by the 3 Director of Industries, Delhi and was registered with sales tax authorities. Defendant no.2 called the plaintiff on 17.4.91 and demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/ by way of illegal gratification and told the plaintiff that in case he failed to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/, he would demolish the shutters. Plaintiff refused to pay the illegal gratification to defendant no.2 and lodged a compliant dt.23.4.91. It is further disclosed in the plaint that a notice dt.19.4.91 was prepared by defendant no.2 in collusion with defendant no.3 and instead of serving the notice upon the plaintiff or his family members, it was pasted at the side wall of the premises on 20.4.91. In notice dt.19.4.91, it was stated by defendants that plaintiff had violated section 342 of Delhi Municipal Act (hereinafter referred as 'DMC Act') by way of providing shutters on the ground floor of the premises. Plaintiff was required to remove the three shutters within 3 days of 4 the service of the notice, failing which action was proposed under section 343(4) of DMC Act. Plaintiff replied the notice vide reply dt.22.4.91 and categorically stated that shutters were not projecting out of the premises or out of the line of the rest of the houses and there was no unauthorized construction contrary to the sanctioned plan. Plaintiff contacted the higher authorities of defendant no.1, but his compliant was not considered. On 29.4.91, defendant no.2 and 3 sent about a dozen employees who demolished not only the shutters, but also to caused substantial damages to the pillars and the walls. The employees of defendants caused physical injuries to the wife and son of the plaintiff, who tried to resist the illegal demolition. It is stated in the plaint that action of the defendant was illegal, unwarranted and gross violation of law. As per plaintiff's case, he suffered a loss of about Rs.2 lacs on account of damages caused to 5 the suit premises. It is stated that due to the removal of shutter and damage to the suit property, plaintiff could not run his business and failed to deliver the orders already received by him in respect of supply of leather goods and therefore, he not only lost his business, but also suffered loss of business reputation. On account of loss of business and reputation, he estimated the damages for a sum of Rs.5 lacs.
It is stated that present plaintiff filed the writ petition no.CW No.1759 of 1991 titled as Sh.Kishori Lal Vs. MCD and Others. On 22.10.91 when the writ petition came up for hearing, Hon.High Court appointed Ms.Chinky Garg, Advocate, as local commissioner. Ld.Local commissioner after visiting the suit premises submitted her report to the effect that shutter installed by the plaintiff in his premises were in the line with shutters put up by others in the 6 locality and in no way projecting out side the premises. It was also reported by Ld.Local commissioner that adjoining buildings on the ground floor premises were being used for commercial purposes and in each one of them shutters were installed. On 2.12.91 considering the report of Local commissioner, Hon.High Court by way of interim relief permitted the present plaintiff to restore the shutter or to install new shutters, as the case may be, though the same should not be out of the line of the shutter put up by others in the locality. Plaintiff stated that despite interim orders by Hon.High Court of Delhi, he could not reinstall the shutters as it required a major work in respect of repairs of pillars and side walls. As shutters could not be reinstalled, the ground floor of the suit premises remained open. Consequently, plaintiff was not able to run his business activities and suffered the business losses. It is alleged by plaintiff that due to 7 receipt of second illegal notice threatening sealing of the premises and on account of the persistent threats extened by the defendants, he suffered mental agony or harassment and therefore, assess the damages on this count at Rs.1 lac. It is further stated by the plaintiff that on 7.8.91, he sent a statutory legal notice under section 80 CPC read with section 478 of DMC Act prior to filing of the suit. In total, plaintiff claimed the damages of Rs.6 lacs and assessed the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction accordingly. 3 In written statement filed by defendant no.1,2 and 3, it is alleged in preliminary objections that suit is barred under sec.477 and 478 of DMC Act for want of statutory notice; that suit is barred under sec.343 and 344 of DMC Act as proper show cause notice and demolition notice was issued to the plaintiff and that suit of the 8 plaintiff has become infructuous as the demolition has already been carried out. it is also stated in preliminary objections that plaintiff has efficacious remedy under section 347E of the DMC Act by filing an appeal before the appellate tribunal, MCD and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It is stated that as there is no jurisdictional error involved in the present suit, the civil court has no jurisdiction. It is further alleged in written statement that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as defendants has taken action strictly in accordance with the provisions of DMC Act. On merits, the material averments of the plaintiff's case has been denied. It is stated that contrary to the DMC Act, bye laws and the sanctioned plan, plaintiff converted the suit premises to commercialize by making three shops at the ground floor. It is alleged that plaintiff installed the three shutter on the said shops and used the same for commercial purpose contrary to the 9 sanctioned plan. The allegations pertaining to the illegal gratification by defendant no.2 and threats by officers of defendants are specifically denied. It is stated in the written statement that demolition was carried out in respect of the illegal construction in accordance with the provisions of DMC Act after giving proper show cause notice. The allegations regarding the loss suffered by the plaintiff and claim of damages has been denied.
4 In replication, the material averments of the written statement including preliminary objections are denied and contents of the plaint are reiterated as correct.
5 On the basis of pleadings and material on record, following issues were framed vide order dt.25.2.05.
10
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred U/s 477 and 478 of DMC ACt? If so, its effect.
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred U/s 343(2) 344 and 347 of the DMC Act and under Rule 19 of the DMC Appellant Tribunal (Procedure) Rule 1986?
3. Whether the suit for damages as framed and filed is maintainable in the absence of relief of declaration to the effect of demolition order being illegal, bad and set aside by the competent court of appellate Tribunal,MCD?
4. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit which is barred U/s 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, since alternative remedy is available before the AT, Delhi?
11
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as prayed for, if so, to what amount?
6. Relief.
6 In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined 11 witnesses. PW1(plaintiff himself) in his testimony supported his case on material averments and proved his ownership vide Ex.PW1/1 which is the certified copy of sale deed in respect of suit premises. Plaintiff also proved sanctioned letter of building plan in respect of suit premises sanctioned by defendant no.1 vide Ex.PW1/2. He further proved (that he was a manufacturer of leather products) through documents Ex.PW1/3 to PW1/6 and Ex.PW11/1 and PW11/2. In this regard plaintiff also placed on record documents mark B,C,G,H,I,J which are mainly the letters etc.to prove the fact. Plaintiff placed on record his 12 written complaint mark D in respect of demand of illegal gratification. Plaintiff also proved reply of demolition notice Ex.PW1/8 vide reply Ex.PW1/7. In respect of estimate of damages caused to the premises, he proved report Ex.PW1/10 prepared by the architect. In respect of loss of business and damages, he placed on record document Ex.PW11/1 and documents mark E and G. Plaintiff also relied on orders passed by Hon.High Court of Delhi dt.2.12.91 proved as Ex.PW6/1 to PW6/6. Plaintiff proved notice dt.19.4.91 referred as Ex.PW10/A and 10/B and reply of notice dt.4.12.91 vide reply dt.12.12.91 referred as PW1/11. He proved statutory legal notice dt.7.8.91 as Ex.PW1/12. Photographs of the demolished site has been placed on record as mark A and Ex.DW1/A, DW1/X5 to DW1/X7. Plaintiff also take support from Ex.PW1/3, the registration certificate in favour of plaintiff firm issued by the Directorate of 13 Industries.
6(a) PW3 Sh.Satender Mohan was the witness from Directorate of Industries. He proved the certificate of registration Ex.PW3/1. 6(b) PW4 Sh.V.P.Kalra from PRIP , Civil Lines, Post Office stated that summoned record was not available in the office. He deposed that the records of registration, booking and dispatch in the year 1999 has been weeded out as per the department rules. 6(c) PW5 Sh.D.S.Rana was from post office, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He also stated that records in respect of delivery of articles in the name of Sh.R.P.Bhardwaj, Commissioner of MCD has already been weeded out as per departmental rules.
14 6(d) PW6 Sh.Ravi Kumar, LDC from Hon.High Court of Delhi brought the original record of writ petition no.CW1759/91 titled Kishori Lal Vs. MCD and proved the relevant orders. 6(e) PW7 Sh.Chander Sen and PW8 Sh.Ram Kishore were the neighbourers of the plaintiff, who supported the plaintiff case in respect of the demolition carried out at the premises of plaintiff and installation of rolling shutters.
6(f) PW9 Smt.Shakuntla Devi was the wife of the palitniff. She deposed the fact that employees of the MCD demolished the said rolling shutters and caused substantial damage to the suit premises despite her resistance.
15 6(g) PW10 Sh.M.S.Tomar was the Building and Quantity Surveyor, who valued the damages caused to the suit premises at Rs.2 lacs also supported the plaintiff case.
6(h) PW11 Sh.Uttam Kumar stated that he was running business of footwear and leather goods and placed an order of Rs.1,55,170/ for purchase of footwear with the firm of plaintiff in the year 1991. He also stated that plaintiff could not execute the said order due to demolition by MCD in suit premises. He proved reminders sent to the plaintiff by him as Ex.PW11/1 and cancellation of order Ex.PW11/2. He also stated that plaintiff expected to earn profit of 15 to 20% out of the total order.
16 7 DW1 Sh.R.P.Bhardwaj was the Junior Enginner in MCD, Karol Bagh Zone. He supported the defendants case and stated that show cause notice was duly served upon the plaintiff prior to demolition of the shutter. He stated that the property was being used for commercial purpose and shutters were installed in violation of the sanctioned building plan. He also stated that suit is not maintainable as plaintiff should have filed an appeal before MCD Appellate Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the court is barred. He proved rough sketch of unauthorized construction at point C in Ex.DW1/1 and show cause notice Ex.DW1/2 along with the proceedings. He also stated that after show cause notice, the unauthorized construction was booked by MCD and he proved the notice Ex.DW1/3. Demolition order was proved as Ex.DW1/4.
17 7(b) DW2 Sh.B.R.Malhotra, was working as ZE(Building), Karol Bagh Zone, MCD, Delhi. He also supported the version of the defendants in respect of issuing of show cause notice, booking of suit property by MCD and demolition by MCD. He also disputed the service of notice prior to filing of the suit and the jurisdiction of the court.
8 I have heard the Ld.counsels for parties. I have carefully gone through the pleadings, documents proved on record and the written arguments filed by the parties. Issue wise discussions is as follows. 9 Issue no.1: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred U/s 477 and 478 of DMC ACt? If so, its effect.
Section 477 of MCD Act provides that no suit or prosecution 18 shall be entertained by any court against the corporation or its officials in respect of any action done in good faith in accordance with the rules, regulations or bye laws.
Section 478 of DMC Act provides that no suit shall be instituted against corporation or its officers until a notice in writing has been left at the municipal office atleast two months prior to the filing of the suit.
9(a) Plaintiff stated that he has issued the notice under sec.477 and 478 of the DMC Act. The copy of the notice has been proved on record. Plaintiff stated that he has not filed the postal receipt in respect of the said notice, but the AD card has been proved on record. PW 4 Sh.V.P.Kalra and PW5 Sh.D.P.Rana appeared from the post office stated that relevant postal records were already 19 weeded out. During cross examination, testimony of PW1 could not be impeached in this regard. In the circumstances of the case when copy of notice and AD card has been proved on record and the relevant postal record has already been destroyed by the postal authority, in balance of probabilities, the version of plaintiff appears to be trust worthy that prior to filing of the suit, notice under section 80 CPC read with sec.478 of of DMC Act was served upon the defendants. In my view, plaintiff has been able to prove that notice was duly served prior to filing of the suit. Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 10 Issue no.2 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred U/s 343 (2), 344 and 347 of the DMC Act and under Rule 19 of the DMC Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rule 1986?
20 Section 343 of DMC Act provides that, "Order of demolition and stoppage of building and works in certain cases and appeal (1) Where the erection of any building or execution of any works has been commenced, or is being carried on, or has been completed without or contrary to the sanction referred to in section 336 or in contravention of any condition subject to which such sanction has been accorded or in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or byelaws made thereunder, the Commissioner may, in addition to any other action that may be taken under this Act, make an order directing that such erection or work shall be demolished by the person at whose instance the erection or work has been commenced or 21 is being carried on or has been completed, within such period( not being less than five days and more than fifteen days from the date on which a copy of the order of demolition with a brief statement of the reasons therefor has been delivered to that person), as may be, specified in the order of demolition:
Provided that no order of demolition shall be made unless the person has been given by means of a notice served in such manner as the Commissioner may think fit, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order shall not be made:
Provided further that where the erection or work has not been completed, the Commissioner may by the same order or by a separate order, whether made at the 22 time of the issue of the notice under the first proviso or at any other time, direct the person to stop the erection or work until the expiry of the period within which an appeal against the order of demolition, if made, may be preferred under subsection (2) (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner made under sub section (1) may prefer an appeal against the order to (the Appellate Tribunal) within the period specified in the order for the demolition of the erection or work to which it relates. (3) Where an appeal is preferred under subsection (2) against an order of demolition( the Appellate Tribunal may, subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of section 347C) stay the enforcement of that order on 23 such terms, if any, and for such period, as it may think fit:
Provided that where the erection of any building or execution of any work has not been completed at the time of the making of the order of demolition, no order staying the enforcement of the order of demolition shall be made by (the appellate Tribunal unless security, sufficient in the option of the said Tribunal) has been given by the appellant for not proceeding, with such erection or work pending the disposal of the appeal. (4) (No court) shall entertain any suit, application or order proceedings for injunction or other relief against the Commissioner to restrain him from taking any action or making any order in pursuance of the 24 provisions of this erection.
(5) (Subject to an order made by the Administrator on appeal under section 347D, every order made by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal under this section, and subject to the orders of the Administrator and the Appellate Tribunal on appeal), the order of demolition made by the Commissioner shall be final and conclusive.
(6) Where no appeal has been preferred again an order of demolition made by the Commissioner under sub section (1) or where an order of demolition made by the Commissioner under that subsection( has been confirmed on appeal, whether with or without variation, by the Appellate Tribunal in a case where no appeal has 25 been preferred against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, and by the Administrator in a case where an appeal has been preferred against the order of the Appellate Tribunal) the person against whom the order has been made shall comply with the order within the period specified therein, or as the case may be, within the period, if any fixed by (the Appellate Tribunal or the Administrator) on appeal and on the failure of the person to comply with the order within such period, the Commissioner may himself cause the erection or the work to which the order relates to be demolished and the expenses of such demolition shall be recoverable from such person as an arrear of tax under this Act)". 26
Section 344 provides as;
"Order of stoppage of buildings or works in certain cases (1) Where the erection of any building or execution of any work has been commenced or is being carried on(but has not been completed) without or contrary to the sanction referred to in section 336 or in contravention of any condition subject to which such sanction has been accorded or in contravention of any provisions of this Act or byelaws made thereunder, the Commissioner may in addition to any other action that may be taken under this Act, by order require the person at whose instance the building or the work has been commenced or is being carried on to stop the same forthwith.
(2) (If an order made by the Commissioner under section 27 343 or under sub section (1) of this section directing any person to stop the erection of any building or execution of any work is not complied with), the Commissioner may require any police officer to remove such person and all his assistants and workmen from the premises (or to seize any construction material, tool, machinery, scaffolding or other things used in the erection of any building or execution of any work) within such time as may be specified in the requisition and such police officer shall comply with the requisition accordingly.
2(A) Any of the things caused to be seized by the Commissioner under Sub section (2) shall be disposed of by him in the manner specified in section 326.
(3)After the requisition under subsection(2) has been 28 complied with, the Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, depute by a written order a police officer or a municipal officer or other municipal employee to watch the premises in order to ensure that the erection of the building or the execution of the work is not continued. (4) Where a police officer or a municipal officer or other municipal employee has been deputed under subsection (3) to watch the premises, the cost of such deputation shall be paid by the person at whose instance such erection or execution is being continued or to whom notice under subsection (1) was given and shall be recoverable from such person as an arrear of tax under this Act".
Section 347 B(K) of DMC Act provides that, any person aggrieved by 29 an order requiring the stoppage of any erection or work under section 344 may prefer an appeal against such order or notice to the Appellate Tribunal.
Section 347 E provides Bar of jurisdiction of courts. 10(a) The main case of the plaintiff is that he reconstructed the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan and shutters were constructed only to protect the suit premises. The version of the plaintiff is that shutters were in line with the other adjoining premises and were not projecting out side the line of the neighbouring properties. In this regard, plaintiff has relied on the report of ld.Local Commissioner, who submitted his report before the Hon.High Court of Delhi in civil writ petition bearing no.CW 1759/91 titled as Kishori Lal Vs. MCD. As per the case of the plaintiff, there was no 30 unauthorized construction in the suit premises and the shutters were demolished as he refused to pay the illegal gratification to the officers of the defendant. The main case of the defendant is that three shutters were installed by plaintiff by making three shops at the ground floor of the suit premises and thereby plaintiff controverted the suit premises for commercial purpose in violation of the sanctioned plan and the bye laws. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that demolition was carried out by the defendants without jurisdiction and following the procedure provided under the DMC Act. Therefore, the civil court has jurisdiction in the matter, whereas it was submitted by the defendants that in view of section 343, 344, 347 and rule 19 of DMC Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rule 1986, there was no jurisdictional error on the part of the defendants. As there was no jurisdictional error on the part of the defendant, the suit is 31 barred under above mentioned provision of DMC Act. Ld.counsel for plaintiff relied on Sh.Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs.Municipal Corporation of Other 50 1993 DLT 492(SC), It was held by the Hon'ble court that, "(1)The Court should not ordinarily entertain a suit in connection with the proceedings initiated for demolition, by the Commissioner, in terms of Section 343(1) of the Corporation Act. The Court should direct the persons aggrieved to pursue the remedy before the Appellate Tribunal and then before the Administrator in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
(2) The Court should entertain a suit questioning the validity of an order passed under Section 343 of the 32 Act, only if the Court is of primafacie opinion that the order is nullity in the eyes of law because of any "jurisdictional error" in excercise of the power by the Commissioner or that the order is outside the Act." 10(b) On the other hand Ld.counsel for defendant has relied on Anil Kumar khurana Vs. MCD 1996 (36) DRJ (DB) High Court of Delhi. In this case it was held that, "Action of authority can not be challenged on the ground that similar action has not been taken against other persons Wrong decision does not entitle any person to claim benefit thereof Principle of first come first go in the matter of demolition can not be followed"
33
10(c) Cross examination of PW1 makes it clear that he has not filed the copy of sanctioned building plan, but only filed covering letter. He could not produce any documentary proof to show that there were shutters in existence in the old building structure. He admitted that the previous owner was residing in the suit premises and it was in the residential use. He could not answer whether he get the sanction building plan for residential purpose or not. He admitted that plan was sanctioned for two rooms, one kitchen, latrine and bathroom on each floor. He also admitted that he did not applied for sanction of shops at the time of submitting his building plan. He admitted that he did not file any appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the demolition order or the sealing order. The testimony of plaintiff makes it clear that the suit premises was in the residential use of previous owner. The sanction for three shops was not taken by the 34 plaintiff from MCD. The sanctioned plan of the building has not been placed on record by the plaintiff. It is clear from the testimony of plaintiff that he could not prove that there was any sanctioned plan for construction of three shops and installation of shutters in the suit premises. It appears that he intentionally did not place the sanctioned building plan and only prove the formal order in respect of the sanction from MCD, so that the material facts in respect of the sanction of shops and the nature of use of the premises may be concealed. Consequently, the installation of shutters and three shops comes within the category of unauthorized construction against the sanctioned building plan and bye laws. It has been admitted by plaintiff in his testimony that show cause notice was posted at his premises prior to the demolition. The testimony of defendant witnesses proved on record that prior to demolition, the 35 property was booked for unauthorized construction and orders were passed by the competent authority. In this background and the testimony of witnesses, it can not be said that there was any jurisdictional error on the part of the defendants while carrying out the demolition in the suit premises. As there was no jurisdictional error on ;the part of the defendants, the suit is barred under section 343(2),344 and 347 of DMC Act as the appropriate and only remedy for the plaintiff was to challenge the demolition order before the appellate tribunal in accordance with the provisions of DMC Act which he did not admittedly challenge. In my view, the suit is barred under section 343(2), 344, 347 of the DMC Act and under Rule 19 of the DMC Appellate Tribunal Rule 1986. Issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. 36 11 Issue no.4:Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit which is barred U/s 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, since alternative remedy is available before the AT, Delhi?
In view of the findings of issue no.2 as plaintiff has an equally efficacious remedy by filing an appeal before Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of DMC Act, the suit is specifically barred U/s 41(h) of Specific Relief Act. Issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. 12 Issue no.3:Whether the suit for damages as framed and filed is maintainable in the absence of relief of declaration to the effect of demolition order being illegal, bad and set aside by the competent court of appellate Tribunal, MCD?
In view of the findings of issue no.2, admittedly the demolition 37 order has not been declared illegal or bad nor has not been set aside by the appellate tribunal in accordance with the provisions of DMC Act which was the appropriate available remedy in law, the suit for damages as prayed by plaintiff is not maintainable before this court. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.
13 Issue no.5:Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as prayed for, if so, to what amount?
In view of the findings of issue no.1,2,3 and 4, as this suit is not maintainable before the court and barred under section 343, 344 and 347 of DMC Act, It will not be proper for this court to give any findings in respect of the entitlement of damages as claimed by the plaintiff. I am of the view that plaintiff is not entitled to the damages 38 as prayed for atleast in this suit before the Civil Court. Issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
14 Relief:
In the light of the above findings, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to R/R after due compliance.
(SANJEEV JAIN) Additional District Judge:Delhi (Central District) Announced in open court on 06.10.2009 39