Delhi District Court
Sh. Satish Kumar Chadha S/O Sh. P.K. ... vs Sh. Vinod Kumar Juneja S/O Sh. Hari Chand ... on 21 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRABH DEEP KAUR
CIVIL JUDGE 05: (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 195/10
Unique ID No.
1. Sh. Satish Kumar Chadha S/o Sh. P.K. Chadha,
R/o H. No. KJ8,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
2. Sh. Deepak Diwan S/o Sh. M.L. Diwan,
R/o H. No. C4A/38A,
Janakpuri, Delhi.
.............Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar Juneja S/o Sh. Hari Chand Juneja,
R/o H. No. J4, 1st floor,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
2. Sh. Varun Juneja S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Juneja,
R/o H. No. J4, 1st floor,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
.............Defendant
Date of filing : 02.06.2010
Date on which order has been reserved : 19.04.2014
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.04.2014
Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.1/20
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for passing a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from grabbing the toilet in disputed situated in the basement of property bearing No. J4, Kirti Nagar, Delhi or otherwise interfering in its user by the plaintiffs and other occupants of the basement godowns/shops as toilet.
2. Plaintiffs Version: In the present suit, plaintiff stated that the plaintiff No. 1 is owner of the shop in the basement of No. J4, Kirti Nagar, Delhi having purchased the same from its erstwhile owner vide sale deed dated 22.01.1996 while plaintiff No. 2 is the owner of another godown/shop in the basement of the suit property having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 06.05.1999. The shops/godowns of the plaintiffs of which they are the owners, are situated in the basement of the property No. J4, Kirti Nagar, Delhi wherein all 9 shops/godowns are lying constructed and which are owned/possessed by different persons including the plaintiffs. Apart from 9 shops, there also exists a toilet measuring about 10X7 which right since the beginning is being commonly used by all occupants/owners of the shops including the plaintiffs. The defendants who are residing in the same property at first floor with family have an evil eye over the said common toilet and they intended to grab the same in Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.2/20 as much as the same can be converted into a shop/godown which can be used for their office. Moreover, they knew that most of the shops are being used as godowns and the owners thereof seldom comes to the property only for the purposes of keeping or taking out their goods. On 09.05.2010 the plaintiff No. 1 went to his godown at about 11 AM and was astonished to see that commode, sanitary fittings etc which were lying affixfed in the toilet were already removed, a pillar adjacent to the said toilet was constructed and an iron shutter was lying besides the said toilet. As a matter of fact all preparations were complete to convert the said common toilet into a shop/godown/office. The said work was got done by the defendants by taking advantage of absence of the shop keepers solely with an intent to grab the said toilet and do convert it into a shop/godown. When the plaintiff No. 1 made inquiry from the defendant No. 1, defendant No. 1, his wife and son i.e defendant No. 2 started abusing the plaintiff No. 1 and threatened him not to interfere in the matter failing which he will face serious repercussions. Thereafter, defendants entered into physical scuffle with plaintiff No. 1 and police was also called but police only persuaded plaintiff no. 1 to compromise the matter. Plaintiff no. 1 got the injuries on head and throughout body and he was admitted in Kalra Hospital where from he was discharged only on 12.05.2010. The plaintiff No. 1 sent a written complaint which was duly received at the PS on 10.05.2010 but despite that no action was initiated against the Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.3/20 defendants. Later on, the plaintiff No. 1 came to know that on false complaint lodged by the defendant No. 1, a criminal case has been registered against the plaintiff No. 1 and his two sons. Despite the fact that sons of the plaintiff No. 1 were not at all present there at the time when plaintiff No. 1 was beaten up. A false case was registered against the plaintiff No. 1 and his two sons by the police at the instance of the defendant No. 1 vide FIR No. 133/2010 registered at PS Kirti Nagar on 11.05.2010 under Sections 452/325/34 IPC and the plaintiff No. 1 and his two sons were compelled to obtain anticipatory bail on 14.05.2010 and 15.05.2010 respectively. The defendants are bent upon in denying the legal right existing in favour of the plaintiffs i.e to use the existing toilet situated in the basement of the suit property which is meant for common use of all the occupants of the basement including the plaintiffs. The defendants in fact have no right to use the said toilet or otherwise to interfere in its user by the occupants of the basement. Hence, the present suit.
3. Defendant' Version: In WS, defendants have denied all the claims of the plaintiffs on the following grounds:
(i) The suit has been filed just to harass and pressurized the defendants to compromise and to withdraw the criminal FIR No. 133/2010 dated 11.05.2010 under Section 452/325/34 IPC of PS Kirti Nagar registered against the plaintiff No. 1 and his two sons. Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.4/20
(ii) Much prior to the filing of the present suit the toilet in question is not in existence and working at all the site/place in question, hence, the suit being infructuous abinitio is liable to be dismissed outrightly.
(iii) The plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit as admittedly the plaintiff have neither any ownership right nor any title nor any concern whatsoever with the toilet as subject matter of the present suit.
(iv) The defendant No. 1 is the owner of one of the flats in the suit property and the defendant No. 1 along with his two sons, one of them is defendant No. 2 and other family members is residing in the said flat at first floor n the suit property. There are total seven numbers of flats in the building while there are shops on the ground floor apart from the godowns/shops in the basement. There was a toilet in the basement, which was right underneath and below the said flat of the defendant No. 1 and since the said toilet was not having any water connection nor there was any sweeper for the purpose of washing and cleaning it regularly and properly, and without any sewerage system and the said toilet was only in the use of the labour, rickshaw puller and other unknown persons and outsiders, therefore, in the absence of any water connection, sewerage system and sweeping it, the same became a place of full of filth and foul smell and created a great unhygienic atmosphere and made the life of the defendants Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.5/20 and other family members a hell and miserable. The defendants as well as the other residents and neighbors made umpteen efforts for the purpose of their shifting away, the said toilet to some other place or for its cleaning/washing regularly but of no use as it was in the use of unscrupulous persons as there is unlocked door in the basement and it was opened to rickshaw puller, kabariwala and even any stranger to enter into and leave behind lot of filth and unhygene because of unlocked door at the basement, the bad elements and miscreants used to visit the said place and posed a great threat and risk to the life and property of the residents of the property.
(v) The plaintiffs were never in use of the said toilet and even their labour and workers used to visit the basement godown occasionally. But on 09.05.2010 at about 11.00 AM the plaintiff No. 1 along with his sons came at the flat of the defendant No. 1 and started filthy abusing when the wife of the defendant No. 1 opened the door and they all carried out an assault on the defendant No. 1 and dragged him from his first floor flat at the road and given brutal beatings to the defendant No. 1, resulting into breaking of several ribs of the defendant No. 1 and even the backbone and wrist of the defendant No. 1 was severely injured. The plaintiff has registered only a simple FIR No. 133/2010 under Section 452/325/34 IPC.
(vi) The plaintiffs are the owners of the godown/shops and have purchased vide alleged sale deeds. There exists nine godowns in the Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.6/20 basement of the suit property rest as stated are wrong and denied. There are only godowns in the basement for the purpose of storing the goods by their occupants and the toilet existing in the basement was not in the use of the occupants/owners of the godowns including the plaintiffs, rather it was being used by outsiders including rickshaw pullers, kabariwalas and other unknown persons as because of having no door or any check to the outsiders. The defendants had never any intention to grab the alleged common toilet and it is apparent that the space of the toilet is till date in the same condition existing at site and defendants with other occupants have only stopped the nuisance being emanated from the said toilet to save themselves from further harassment inconvenience. The plaintiffs have in fact no grievances whatsoever due to the closing of the toilet and have filed the present suit with malafide intentions and designs.
(viii) The defendants have not removed the commode and sanitary fittings nor constructed any pillar nor brought any iron shutter. The pillar is in existence since very beginning and the defendant No. 1 purchased only one flat forming part of the suit property at first floor and he has not carried out any alleged construction of pillar and the alleged iron shutter was of the plaintiffs. The said pillar is only for the strengthening the huge concrete load of the property consisting of several shops on the ground floor and sever residential flats. The commode was removed from there as it was creating unhygienic condition and there was likelihood of epidemic Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.7/20 also. The commode was also removed after the due approval from the plaintiffs and other occupants of shops and godowns as well as other occupants of the flats. The fittings were removed by other occupants of the flats along with the owners/occupants of the shops/godowns owners for the reasons that it was making the atmosphere unhygienic and unhealthy.
(ix) The defendants have neither denied nor interfered in the use of the toilet which is firstly not in existence and use since prior to the filling of the present suit, and further the defendants have also no objection for the use of the toilet by the occupants of the basement godowns for their own personal use with the condition that there will be no unhygienic condition in the said toilet and will be properly maintained, and cleaned and the defendants and other occupants will not be allowed to suffer any inconvenience or foul smell.
4. On the basis of pleadings and arguments of the parties, vide order dated 02.02.2011, the following issues have been framed: (I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP.
(II) Any other relief.
6. To prove his case, plaintiffs have examined the following witnesses:
(a) Sh. Satish Kumar Chadha (plaintiff No. 1) as PW1. Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.8/20
(b) Sh. Krishan Kumar, LDC from Sub Registrar Office, Janakpur, New Delhi as PW2.
(c) Head Constable Sh. Rajesh Kumar from PS Kirti Nagar, Delhi as PW3.
(d) Sh. Satbir Singh, UDC from office of Sub RegistrarI, Kashmere Gate, Delhi as PW4.
(e) Sh. Desraj Singh, record clerk from DDU Hospital, New Delhi as PW5.
(f) Sh. Ghanshyam Lal from MRD of Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar, Delhi as PW6.
(g) ASI Arjun Pandit from PS Hari Nagar, Delhi as PW7 (wrongly mentioned as PW6).
7. Plaintiffs have relied upon the following documents:
(i) Registered sale deed is Ex. PW1/1.
(ii) Sale deed dated 06.05.1999 is Ex. PW1/2.
(iii) Original discharge summary and admission card issued by
doctors concerned at DDU Hospital is Ex. PW1/3.
(iv) Discharge summary issued by Kalra Hospital is Ex. PW1/4.
(v) Certificate about the injuries sustained by the plaintiff No. 1
issued by the Kalra Hospital is Ex. PW1/5.
(vi) Copy of the complaint submitted by the plaintiff to PS Kirti
Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.9/20
Nagar dated 09.05.2010 is Ex. PW1/6.
(vii) Copy of another complaint dated 10.05.2010 is Ex. PW1/7.
(viii) Copy of complaint dated 10.05.2010 is Ex. PW1/8.
(ix) Copy of FIR lodged against the plaintiff No. 1 and his sons is
Ex. PW1/9.
(x) Copy of anticipatory bail orders dated 14.05.2010 and
15.05.2010 are Ex. PW1/10.
(xi) Copy of registered sale deed dated 22.01.1996 is Ex. PW4/A.
(xii) Copy of MLC bearing No. 8871 dated 09.05.2010 is Ex.
PW5/1.
8. On the other hand, in their defence, defendants have examined Sh. Vinod Kumar Juneja (defendant No. 1) as DW1.
9. The final arguments have been concluded from both the sides on 17.04.2014 & 19.04.2014.
10. My Issue Wise Findings: Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP.
(i) The onus to prove this issues is upon the plaintiff. To prove the same, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and during examination in chief by way of affidavit, he has reasserted the facts mentioned in the Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.10/20 plaint. He was duly cross examined and during cross examination, he has deposed that ".............It is not mentioned in the sale deed that apart from the nine shops in the godown there exist a toilet also. It is wrong to suggest that there exist any toilet...........The suit property is a godown only. There exist water connection in the suit property........There exist sewerage connection in the suit property......The Sweeper was employed by me and the other owners of the shops to clean the suit property.....I can not tell the name of the sweeper who was employed. The door was also there in the suit property........There was no security guard on the entrance gate of the basement. The entrance gate of the basement used to close by the persons who uses the shops in the basement. There was no lock on the entrance gate of the basement. It is wrong to suggest that the access to the basement is opened to all public. Vol. As 23 persons used to reside in the basement. I can not tell the names of the persons. Vol. That they are employees of the Gopal Ji Milk Product.........It is correct that the present suit has been filed by me along with one Mr. Deepak Diwan only. No other occupant including the Gopal Ji Milk Product have filed the present suit......Some shops in the basement were sealed by the authority in the year 2006. I can not tell the reasons for which the shops were sealed. It is wrong to suggest that my shop was also sealed by the authority......The fact of toilet in the basement is not mentioned in the sale deeds.......It is wrong to suggest that the defendants have ever tried to grab the suit property. It is also wrong to suggest that the defendants intended to grab the suit property in the form of shop or office. It is wrong to suggest that the defendants have any evil eye over the suit property. It is also wrong to suggest that I have no legal right over the toilet. It is correct that the J4 is residential as well as commercial property. It is correct that this fact is not mentioned in the sale deed. It is also wrong to suggest that the basement can not be used for any commercial purpose rather it is meant only for storage purpose...........I do not know that the basement was sealed by the authority in the year 2006 as the same can not be used for any Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.11/20 commercial purpose............."
(ii) Further, plaintiff has examined Sh. Krishan Kumar, LDC from the office of Sub Registrar, Janakpuri, New Delhi as PW2 and he has proved the sale deed dated 10.05.1999 executed by Sh Anuj Kumar Singhal in favour of Sh. Deepak Diwan registered as document No. 3044 in additional book No. 1, Volume No. 9240 on pages 1620, Ex. PW1/2. Further, plaintiffs have examined Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Head Constable from PS Kirti Nagar as PW3 and he has proved the FIR No. 133 dated 11.05.2010 under Section 452/325/34 IPC (Ex. PW1/9) and complaint dated 10.05.2010 (Ex. PW1/8). Further, plaintiffs have examined Sh. Satbir Singh, UDC, from office of Sub RegistrarI, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi as PW4 and he has proved the sale deed dated 22.01.1996(Ex. PW4/A). Further, plaintiffs have examined Sh. Desraj, Record Clerk, DDU Hospital as PW5 and he has proved the MLC bearing No. 8871 dated 09.05.2010 and copy of the same is Ex. PW5/1. Further, plaintiffs have examined Sh. Ghanshyam Lal, MRD of Kalra Hospital, Kirti Nagar, Delhi as PW6 and he has proved the Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/5. Further, plaintiffs have examined Sh. Arjun Pandit, ASI from PS Hari Nagar, New Delhi as PW6 (wrongly mentioned as PW6) and he has proved the complaint dated 09.05.2010 (Ex. PW1/6). Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.12/20
(iii) On the other hand, defendants have examined defendant No. 1, Sh. Vinod Kumar Juneja as DW1 and during examination in chief by way of affidavit, he has reasserted the facts mentioned in the WS. He was duly cross examined and during cross examination, he has deposed that "...........I am the owner of a flat on first floor, back portion in property no. J4 and I have not placed on record any ownership document regarding the same. The whole property is consisted of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor..........The basement is consisted of godowns / shops and the same is being used for the same purpose. There are three shops on ground floor towards the road side. There is only one residential flat on the ground floor. There are two flats on the first floor and two families reside there and similar is the position with the second and the third floor. That other residents of the building also have the objections because of the stinking condition of the toilet. I do not remember the exact time or date when the neighbourers complained to me in this regard. The whole of the property was got constructed in the year 1991 and since then the basement along with the toilet is existing there. Vol. However there was no water connection or sewerage pipeline connecting to the toilet. Hence, the same cannot be termed as toilet...........There was no written complaint to any authority either MCD or police regarding the bad condition of the toilet..........I do not know whether there is any association formed by the Kirti Nagar Traders. I am not owning any shop or godown in this property. I have no right to ownership regarding the bathroom in basement and not so is written in my Sale Deed. There was only a broken combod in the basement which was used by the rickshaw pullers and the passers by. It was only an open space. It is correct that there was no written complaint in this regard to any authority by me or any other residents however verbally I and other residents have complained to this effect to the plaintiff and to his son also many times.......... The basement is having proper ventilation through which the foul smell comes to my Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.13/20 flat. It is incorrect to suggest that no such foul smell comes to my flat and that I have evil eye on this space / toilet...........It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiffs shop in basement is having any iron shutter. I am having common stair case which leads from the first floor to the third floor. These stairs are separate from the stairs to the basement. I on 09.05.2010, did not try to dismantle the toilet existed in the basement. It is incorrect to suggest that I never cleaned up the toilet. I do not remember the dates and time prior to 09/05/2010 when this toilet was cleaned up by me. Prior to May 2010, we had never had any grievance or scuffle with each other..............It is incorrect to suggest that plaintiff came to my house on 09.05.2010 with a complaint regarding the dismantling of the toilet. It is incorrect to suggest that I, my son and my wife quarelled with the plaintiff on 09.05.2010. Vol. Sh. Satish Chaddha, Rahul and Rohit Chaddha came to my house on 09.05.2010 and assaulted me...........It is incorrect to suggest that on 09.05.2010, I tried to dismantle the toilet so that the same cannot be used by the plaintiff and the other owners of the shops in the basement...........In para no. 5 of my WS, I admit that the combod was removed by me and other occupants of the building. It is wrong to suggest that the other occupants have not accompanied me in removal of the combod. It is correct that I had not asked the plaintiff before removal of the combod because the plaintiff has no right or interest in the property so there is no need to ask him.............."
(iv) Arguments heard. Record perused.
(v) In the present suit, as per plaintiffs, plaintiffs are owners of
two shops in basement of property bearing No. J4, Kirti Nagar, Delhi. As per plaintiffs, there are total 9 shops in the basement and there exists one toilet which is being used by all occupants of the shops including plaintiffs since beginning and defendants are residing on the first floor of the Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.14/20 property bearing No. No. J4, Kirti Nagar, Delhi. On 09.05.2010, defendants tried to convert the said common toilet into a shop/office and because of this, a dispute arose between plaintiffs and defendants which resulted into physical scuffle and a police complaint was registered by defendant No. 1 against plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs have right to use the toilet situated in basement of property No. J4, Kirti Nagar, Delhi and defendants are interfering with this right of the plaintiffs. Hence, the present suit.
(vi) On the other hand, as per defendants, plaintiffs have no right over the said toilet. The toilet in question was just right underneath the flat of defendant No. 1 and was not having any water connection and sewerage system and was creating unhygienic atmosphere, therefore, defendants removed the commode after approval from the plaintiffs and other occupants and thus, at the time of filing the present suit, the said toilet was not in existence and the suit has already become infructuous. Further, defendants have no intention to grab the said toilet and the space of toilet is in existence and defendants have only stopped the nuisance being created from the said toilet.
(vii) Thus, a toilet situated in basement of property No. J4, Kirti Nagar, Delhi is in dispute. None of the parties is claiming ownership or possession over the said toilet. The plaintiffs are claiming their rights to use the said toilet. Admittedly, plaintiffs are having their shops in the Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.15/20 basement since 1996 and as per plaintiffs, they are using the said toilet since 1996.
(viii) DW1 has admitted in cross examination that "The whole of the property was got constructed in the year 1991 and since than, basement along with toilet is existing there."
Thus, the toilet was in existence since 1991. The defendants are residing in the first floor and are not claiming even the right to use the said toilet while the plaintiffs are occupants of shops in basement of property No. J4, Kirti Nagar, Delhi and, therefore, plaintiffs have right to use the said toilet existing since the purchase of shops by plaintiffs.
(ix) Now, as per plaintiffs, defendants are trying to grab the toilet and are trying to convert the said toilet into office/shop while the defendants have denied the allegations. But, during cross examination, PW1 has admitted that "...........It is wrong to suggest that the defendants have ever tried to grab the suit property. It is also wrong to suggest that the defendants intended to convert the suit property in the form of shop or office. It is also wrong to suggest that defendants have any evil eye over the suit property........"
Thus, the plaintiff No. 1 himself has taken contradictory plea and has denied that defendants are trying to grab the toilet in dispute and, therefore, it can be said that plaintiffs have failed to prove cause of action Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.16/20 so as to entitle plaintiffs for injunction against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from grabbing the toilet in dispute.
(x) Further, plaintiffs have sought the relief to restrain the defendants from interfering in use of toilet in dispute by the plaintiffs and other occupants of the shops in basement as toilet. As has already been discussed that defendants have admitted that the toilet in dispute was in existence since 1991. It is clear that toilet is a basic amenity and plaintiffs as occupants of shops in basement are having basic human right to use the toilet existing in the property since beginning. Now, the onus shifts upon the defendants to show why this basic human right should be denied to the plaintiffs. As per defendants the toilet was not having proper water connection and sewerage system and the same was also causing unhygienic atmosphere. As per defendants, the toilet is right underneath their flat and causing inconvenience to them but defendants have not filed anything to prove that the toilet in question is situated just underneath the flat of defendants. Further, during cross examination, DW1 has admitted that "............The other residents of building also have objections because of the stinking condition of the toilet. I do not remember the exact time or date when the neighborers complaint to me in this regard.............There was no written complaint to any authority either MCD or Police regarding the bad condition of the toilet.............It is correct that there was no written complaint in this regard to any authority by me or any other resident.........I do not remember the dates and time prior to 09.05.2010 when this toilet was cleaned up by me. Prior to May, 2010 we had never had any grievances or scuffle Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.17/20 with each other............In para No. 5 of my WS, I admit that commode was removed by me and other occupants of the building. It is correct that I had not asked the plaintiffs before removal of commode because the plaintiffs have no right or interest in the property, so there is no need to ask them............"
Thus, defendants have admitted during evidence that they have not made any complaint to any of the authority regarding their allegations that the toilet in question was creating unhygienic atmosphere nor defendants have made any written complaint to the plaintiffs or other occupants regarding the maintenance of toilet. Further, even defendants have admitted before May, 2010, there was no dispute between parties. Thus, the averments of the defendants that they have made several complaints and requests to the plaintiffs regarding the alleged nuisance being created by the toilet in question, seems improbable because as per defendants themselves, the toilet was in existence since 1991 and from 1991 to May, 2010, defendants have no grievances with the plaintiffs regarding the use of said toilet.
(xi) Further, defendants themselves admitted during evidence that the commode was removed by the defendants without approval from the plaintiffs while in the WS, defendants have stated that commode was removed after due approval from the plaintiffs and other occupants of the shops. Thus, the defendants have taken contradictory plea and the defence of the defendants seems improbable and plaintiffs have been able to prove Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.18/20 that defendants have interfered in use of toilet in dispute by the plaintiffs and other occupants as toilet and, therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to the decree against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from interfering in use of toilet in question by the plaintiffs as toilet. As far as the plea of defendants regarding maintenance of toilet is concerned, neither defendants have shown anything to prove that plaintiffs were not maintaining the toilet in question properly nor defendants have sought any such relief against the plaintiffs or any other competent authority so that directions regarding maintenance of toilet can be issued.
(xii) Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, issue No. 1 is disposed off as being decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for the relief of injunction regarding interference in use of toilet in question and as being decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs for the relief of injunction regarding restraining the defendants from grabbing the toilet in question.
11. In view of the findings on issue No. 1, the suit is liable to be partly dismissed for the relief of injunction regarding restraining the defendants from grabbing the toilet in question and suit is liable to be partly decreed for the relief of injunction regarding interference in use of toilet in question. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiffs is partly dismissed and partly decreed and the decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants thereby Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.19/20 restraining the defendants from interfering in use of toilet in question situated in basement of property No. J4, Kirti Nagar, Delhi by the plaintiffs as a toilet.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced in the open court on 21st April , 2014 (PRABH DEEP KAUR) CIVIL JUIDGE05(WEST) THC/DELHI/21.04.2014 Suit No. 195/10 Satish Kumar Chadha & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Juneja & Ors. Page No.20/20