Delhi District Court
Dinesh Kumar Singhal vs Vikas K. Chadha on 13 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT
CONTROLLER, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided By : Sh. Mohit Sharma, DJS
Civil Suit No: 810/2022
In the matter of:
Dinesh Kumar Singhal
S/o Sh. Mangal Ram Singhal
R/o 63, Masjid Road, Shiv Market,
Jangpura (Bhogal), New Delhi-110014.
.......Counter claimant/defendant no. 2
Versus
Vikas K. Chadha
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Chadha
R/o 49, Shiv Market, Masjid Road,
Jangpura (Bhogal), New Delhi.
.........Non-claimant/plaintiff
DATE OF FILING OF COUNTER-CLAIM : 22.11.2018
DATE OF RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT : 29.03.2025
DATE OF DECISION : 13.06.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the counter-claim filed by counter-claimant/defendant no. 2 seeking a decree for mandatory injunction against the non-claimant/plaintiff by directing the non-claimant/plaintiff, his servants, agents and assigns etc. to remove the debris of the collapsed balcony of the first floor of property No.49, Masjid Road, Shiv Market, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014, as is shown in red colour CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 1 of 18 Digitally signed MOHIT by MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.20 14:33:52 +0700 in site plan filed by the counter-claimant/defendant no.2 and/or restore the said balcony to it's original condition and also repair and restore all consequential damages, caused on account of the collapse of the said balcony to the ground floor of the said property at his own costs in a time bound manner and thereafter, ensure that the said balcony is properly maintained by him, and also to remove the junked Maruti Van No-DAE 4588 from the front of the suit property along with cost of the counter-claim.
2. Before proceeding further with the present counter-claim, it is necessary to mention the facts of the civil suit originally filed by the non-claimant/plaintiff. The plaintiff, claiming partial ownership in property no. 49, Masjid Road, Shiv Market, Jangpura (Bhogal), New Delhi, alleged that the building is over 45 years old and structurally unsafe. Despite repeated requests, the defendants-who also occupy portions of the property-have refused to cooperate in carrying out essential repairs or reconstruction. A portion of the building collapsed in 2017, and further damage occurred in 2018. The South Delhi Municipal Corporation had directed urgent repairs, but the defendants obstructed the plaintiff's attempts. The plaintiff also issued a legal notice and attempted pre-litigation mediation, which failed. The suit sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to allow structural repairs, including construction of pillars, and a perpetual injunction restraining them from causing obstruction, along with costs.
3. Upon service of summons of the abovesaid suit filed by the non-claimant/plaintiff, the defendant no. 2 filed written statement CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 2 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHIT MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.20 14:34:00 +0700 along with counter-claim and has made the following averments in the counter-claim:-
i. The defendant no.2/ counter-claimant is the absolute owner of entire ground floor of the suit property 49, Masjid Road, Jangpura, New Delhi-110014. The counter-claimant/defendant no. 2 has suffered substantial losses and damages on account of the acts and omissions of the non-claimant/plaintiff. ii. The various areas of the building are owned and under occupation of the different persons as are shown in the table below:
Sr. Owned by Occupied by Condition
No.
1. Ground floor portion Shri Dinesh Shri Dinesh Good in use
hall (3 shutters) Kumar Kumar
shown red in the site Singhal and Singhal and plan Shri Narender Shri Narender Gupta Gupta
2. Rear ground floor Shri Dinesh Shri Dinesh Good in use hall shown blue in Kumar Kumar site plan Singhal and Singhal and Shri Narender Shri Narender Gupta Gupta
3. Ground floor Shri Dinesh Shri Dinesh Good in use common passage Kumar Kumar shown green in site Singhal and Singhal and plan Shri Narender Shri Narender Gupta Gupta
4. First floor front Not known Plaintiff Good in use, portion shown blue except front in site plan balcony which was unauthorized protrusion on public land collapsed on or about 23.09.2017 on account of damage caused to the same and CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 3 of 18 Digitally signed MOHIT by MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.20 14:34:08 +0700 non-
maintenance by the plaintiff iii. Counter-claimant/defendant no. 2 is the owner in occupation of the entire ground floor of the property No.49, Masjid Road, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014 for the last number of years on the basis of duly registered sale deeds executed in name of counter- claimant/ defendant no.2 and one Shri Narender Gupta by the erstwhile owner of the said property namely Shri Suresh Chand Kakkar for the rear portion shown blue in the site plan of the ground vide sale deed dated 16.02.2018, duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar-V (I), Delhi as Document No.837, Book No.1, Vol. No.539 pages 185 to 193 on 17.02.2018 and the owner of the front hall shown red in the site plan along with Shri Narender Gupta under the two sale deeds dated 14.05.2012 executed by the erstwhile owner Shri Yashpal Lakhina and another in favour of counter-claimant/defendant no.2 and Shri Narender Gupta.
iv. The non-claimant/plaintiff is the defaulter and the offending party and has violated the provision of DMC Act as regards the maintenance and upkeep of the first floor balcony of the property which collapsed on account of misuse, ill-maintenance and damage caused by the non-claimant/plaintiff who is the occupier of the first floor of the property. The non-claimant/plaintiff has failed to perform his statutory duties under the DMC Act in maintaining the first floor balcony. The balcony in question collapsed on or about 23.09.2017 on account of default on part of the non-claimant/plaintiff. The counter-claimant/defendant no. 2 on account of collapse of the balcony suffered losses and inconvenience as the shop in the form of a hall belonging to counter-claimant/defendant no.2 on the front of the ground floor CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 4 of 18 Digitally signed MOHIT by MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.20 14:34:16 +0700 has become un-useable and damaged on account collapsed balcony. The counter-claimant/defendant no. 2 on 23.09.2017 lodged a police complaint about the collapse of the balcony. v. It was the duty of the non-claimant/plaintiff to have immediately repaired and restored the balcony to its original condition or to have removed the collapsed debris as the balcony itself was totally illegal extension on public land and was not permissible in the first place.
vi. The non-claimant/plaintiff failed to do so despite having received an order to the said effect from the MCD by their letter dated 23.09.2017. The non-claimant/plaintiff had earlier disputes and differences with the occupants of the building and had in fact intentionally demolished the balcony in order to cause losses and damages as well as inconvenience to the counter-claimant/defendant no. 2 and other occupants of the building. The non-claimant/plaintiff is bound to either remove the debris of the collapsed balcony or at his own costs repair and restore the balcony to its original condition.
4. No written statement to the counter-claim was filed by the non-claimant/plaintiff and hence, his right to file written statement was closed vide order dated 08.04.2019 resulting in striking off the defence of non-claimant/plaintiff.
5. Vide order 16.08.2022, in view of the statement made by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, the present counter-claim qua one of the reliefs with respect to removal of Maruti Van bearing no. DAE-4588 from front of the suit property was disposed of as withdrawn.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 16.08.2022:
CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 5 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHITMOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.20 14:34:24 +0700
a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction against defendant/non-claimant for removal of debris of balcony at the suit property no. 49, Masjid Road, Shiv Market, Jangpura (Bhogal), New Delhi-110014 as well as for restoration of the said balcony at the suit property to it's original condition? OPP
b) Relief.
7. During the evidence, counter-claimant/defendant no. 2 Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singhal stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. Further, he relied upon the following documents:
a) Copy of site plans - Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5
b) Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act -Ex.PW1/6
c) The complaint before PS Jangpura dated 10.04.2016 -
Ex.PW1/7(OSR)
d) Copy of complaint before MCD dated 13.07.2017 - Mark A
e) 11 photographs of suit property - Ex.PW1/9 (colly)
f) The complaint dated 23.09.2007 - Ex.PW1/10 (OSR)
g) Copy of sale deed dated 16/17.02.2018 - Ex. Ex.PW1/11 (OSR).
8. PW-1 reiterated the contents of the counter-claim in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. No other witness was examined by the counter-claimant. PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for non-claimant/plaintiff. The relevant portion of his cross-examination is being reproduced below:
CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 6 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHITMOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.20 14:34:32 +0700 Ownership of ground floor of the suit property i. I had purchased the part front portion of the suit property in May, 2012 and back portion of the suit property in 2018, both are on ground floor.
ii. I had purchased the said part of the suit property jointly with my father namely Late Sh. Mangat Lal and uncle namely Late Sh. Ram Niwas Gupta. My father and uncle have both expired in 2021.
iii. Narender Gupta is my cousin brother. I had purchased the property with Narender Gupta bearing no. 49, Masjid Road, Ground Floor, Bhogal in 2012 & 2018. iv. The portion of the suit property purchased in the year 2012 is ad measuring 33x34 sq. ft. and the portion of the suit property purchased in the year 2018 is ad-measuring 15x34 sq. ft. In front portion of property no. 49, the area of the property purchased is 33x34 sq ft. approximately, which is the total front area purchased with Mr. Narender Gupta. In back portion of property no. 49, the area of the property purchased is 15x33 sq ft. approximately, which is the total back area purchased with Mr. Narender Gupta.
Use of ground floor of suit property v. I have not been using the suit property since 2017 when the 1 st floor of the balcony of the suit property has been collapsed. vi. The ground floor of the suit property is in habitable condition. vii. None of the portion of the suit property is being used by me at present as the shutter cannot be opened Malba/debris lying in front of the suit property CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 7 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHIT MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.20 14:34:41 +0700 viii. It is correct that presently there is no malba/debris in front of the said building.
Authorization by joint owner ix. I do not have any knowledge about filing of authorization on behalf of Sh. Narender Gupta, the joint owner of part portion of suit property as per sale deed Ex. PW1/11, in the present counter- claim.
Further damages in the suit property x. Nothing has been collapsed after the collapse of chajja of the balcony of first floor of suit property in September, 2017.
Status of the entire building xi. I not know if officials of National Counsel for Cement and Building Material (NCB) had visited the building where suit property is located and carried out structural safety and stability survey of the building in November/December, 2022. xii. In MCD inspection in 2023, the said building stated to be in okay condition.
xiii. During cross-examination, PW-1 was shown certificate dated 14.12.2022 with respect to the building where the suit property is located by NCB Ex.PW1/D1(OSR), upon which he deposed that he cannot say if Ex.PW1/D1 records the conditions of the building to be extremely dilapidated that nobody can enter the said building.
9. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 8 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHITMOHIT SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.06.20 14:34:49 +0700
10. Now, I shall give issue wise findings upon appreciation of evidence and record.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction against defendant/non-claimant for removal of debris of balcony at the suit property no. 49, Masjid Road, Shiv Market, Jangpura (Bhogal), New Delhi-110014 as well as for restoration of the said balcony at the suit property to it's original condition? OPP
11. The counter-claimant/defendant no. 2 seeks a decree of mandatory injunction directing the non-claimant/plaintiff to (i) remove debris of the collapsed balcony of the first floor, (ii) repair and restore the said balcony to it's original condition.
12. On perusal of pleadings, evidence, and documents placed on record, including the counter-claimant's affidavit and documents (Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/11), it is not in dispute that the balcony of the first floor had collapsed around September 2017. The counter-claimant owns the ground floor portion underneath and asserts resultant damage and loss of use.
13. During the cross-examination of PW1, non-claimant had confronted the witness with a copy of writ petition alongwith annexures filed by the non-claimant before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the same were exhibited as Ex.PW1/D2. Two documents annexed with the said writ petition are found to be relevant for the present case.
CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 9 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHITMOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.20 14:34:57 +0700
14. The first document (at page 90 of Ex.PW1/D2) is the letter written by the non-claimant to the SDMC on 13.07.2017 seeking permission to carry out repairs in the suit property. The letter dated 13th July 2017, written by Vikas K. Chadha to the Zonal Engineer of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation, seeks permission to carry out repairs to the roof, walls, and chhajja (parapet) of his property located at 49, Shiv Market, Masjid Road, Jangpura, New Delhi. He states that the property had been let out by his late father to Shri G.S. Gill, who occupied it from 1979 and allegedly vacated it after causing extensive structural damage, rendering it unsafe. Despite his efforts, the applicant has been unsuccessful in getting the damage repaired or taking effective legal action. He mentions that certain individuals are hostile towards him and are filing false reports, compelling him to formally seek permission for the repairs as allowed under Building Bye Law 6.4.1. He clarifies that the proposed work is limited to repairs only, without any structural alterations or extensions. A request is also made to instruct municipal staff not to obstruct the repair work,
15. The second document (at page 92 of Ex.PW1/D2) is the letter dated 23.09.2017 written by SDMC to the owner/occupier of the suit property regarding the repair of the building. The letter dated 23rd September 2017 from the Office of the Executive Engineer (M-I), South Delhi Municipal Corporation, is addressed to the owner/occupier of Property No. 49, Masjid Road, Bhogal, New Delhi. It states that a portion of the chhajja (overhanging structure) of the building has collapsed, and a complaint has been received regarding the dangerous condition of the remaining CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 10 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHIT SHARMA MOHIT Date:
SHARMA 2025.06.20 14:35:05 +0700 portions. The letter requests the recipient to immediately undertake repairs or strengthening of the building, as per Clause 2.14 of the Unified Building Bye-Laws 2016, in order to prevent any potential accidents or harm to nearby buildings, residents, or passersby. The repairs must be carried out without delay and with intimation to the Central Zone building department.
16. The non-claimant/plaintiff has chosen not to file any written statement to the counter-claim, and thus, his defence stands struck off vide order dated 08.04.2019. Consequently, the material facts pleaded in the counter-claim stand unrebutted, except to the extent of admissions during cross-examination of PW-1.
17. As per the site plan and pleadings, the first floor of the property, including the balcony in question, is under occupation and control of the non-claimant/plaintiff. It is further supported by the plaintiff's own averments in the main suit, where he has projected himself as a responsible co-occupant seeking repairs and safety measures.
18. The photographs placed on record, the complaint to the MCD dated 13.07.2017 (Mark A), and the MCD letter dated 23.09.2017 collectively support the claim of the balcony collapse and the resulting debris affecting the ground floor area owned by the counter-claimant. The failure of the non-claimant to remove the remnants or take remedial action thereafter reflects ongoing nuisance and obstruction.
CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 11 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHITMOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.20 14:35:15 +0700
19. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, under the DMC Act, 1957, imposes certain statutory duties upon occupiers and owners. Under Section 348 of the DMC Act, it is the duty of the owner or occupier of any premises to maintain the building in a safe condition. Under Section 353B and 368, the occupier or owner is bound to take steps to avoid any danger to life or property and repair structures upon receiving notice of hazard or damage. The Unified Building Bye-laws, 2016 (clause 2.14), also provide for immediate repair of unsafe buildings as per MCD's directive dated 23.09.2017. The MCD's letter dated 23.09.2017 directing immediate repairs was ignored by the non-claimant. The counter-claimant, being a lower floor owner, had no access or authority to repair the first-floor balcony. Therefore, the duty to repair rests with the non-claimant. The non-claimant has failed to explain as to why he did not carry out the repair work of the collapsed chhajja at the first floor of the suit property despite himself seeking permission from the MCD regarding the same vide letter dated 13.07.2017 and after the request letter dated 23.09.2017 issued by SDMC for repair of the fallen chajja.
20. The counter-claimant has sufficiently shown that the non-
claimant/plaintiff failed to comply with such obligations, and the collapsed balcony continued to pose inconvenience and damage to the ground floor. Though the malba/debris has since been cleared (as admitted in cross-examination), the structural repair and removal of remaining steel/iron structures protruding from the balcony remains unaddressed.
CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 12 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHITMOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.20 14:35:24 +0700
21. The non-claimant has not disputed the averment of the counter-claimant that the chajja of the balcony of first floor of suit property had collapsed in September, 2017. It is also not in dispute that the front portion of the ground floor of the suit property, below the collapsed chajja of the first floor balcony, is occupied as well owned by the counter-claimant. It is also not in dispute that the first floor of the suit property where the chajja of the balcony had collapsed is in occupation of the non-claimant.
The non-claimant has not put any question or suggestion to PW1 to the effect that the non-claimant is not liable to repair and maintain the chajja of the balcony of first floor of suit property.
22. The defence put forth by the non-claimant during the cross- examination of PW1 that the counter-claimant has not impleaded the joint owner of the ground floor of the suit property Mr. Narender Gupta as a party in the present counter-claim is not found to be tenable since it is not a requirement in law that a suit for mandatory injunction regarding the damage to a property has to be filed by all the joint owners of the property.
23. The non-claimant has placed a heavy reliance on his defense that the whole building of the suit property has become dilapidated and is required to be demolished and re-constructed. To the contrary, the counter-claimant has taken a stand that the whole building is not in a dilapidated state and only requires repairs and strengthening.
24. The non-claimant has relied upon the report dated 14.12.2022 of 'National Council for Cement & Building CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 13 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHIT MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.20 14:35:33 +0700 Materials' (Ex.PW1/D1) regarding the status of the building in question which observed that:
"The chujja on the front side of the building at ground floor level has already fallen-off with visible skeletal corroded hanging reinforcement steel. The chujjas at first floor is highly distressed in terms of spalling of concrete in large patches and corrosion of exposed reinforcement steel and same pose threat to passer-byes.
Keeping in view the apparent condition of the building, the building is in highly distressed/ dilapidated state. Even carrying out testing of such structure is highly unsafe. Therefore, we regret to inform you that NCB is not in position to take up further condition assessment work considering issue of safety during the assessment"
25. The counter-claimant has relied upon the report dated 16.05.2023 of MCD (at page 186 of Ex.PW1/D2) regarding the status of the building in question which observed that:
"The part portion of the Chajjas of premises No. 49, Masjid Road, Bhogal was fallen on 23.09.2017 and a complaint in this regard was received, and eminent dangerous portion of Chajjas was demolished for the safety of the nearby residents/passer-by on the same day. The owner/occupiers were requested vide letter No. D/EE (M)-JCNZ/2017-2017/1220 dated 23.09.2017 to repair/strengthened the building without loss of time as per clause no.2.14 of the unified BBL 2016 under intimation to the building department of Central Zone but no repair work has been carried out by the owners/occupiers of this property. Further, a letter bearing no. D/EE (M)-1/CN2/2021-22/186 dated 11.06.2021 was again sent to owners/occupiers to repair/strengthened the building without loss of time as per clause no. 2.14 of the unified BBLs 2016 under intimation to the building department of Central Zone but no repair work has been carried out by the owners/occupiers due to the reasons best known to owners/occupiers, or due to disputes among the multiple owners of this property as well as not in use. Further, a letter bearing No. D/EE (M)-1/CNZ/2021-2022/384 dated 09.07.2021 was also sent to Sh. Vikas K. Chadha and other owners/occupiers of this property by mentioning therein that it seems that all the owners/occupiers are not carrying the repairs in this building since more than 4 years without any reason and waiting for any kind of mishap and all the owners/occupiers of this property are fully responsible for any type of mishap since no repairing/strengthening had been CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 14 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHIT MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.20 14:35:58 +0700 carried out even after writing many letters to repair/strengthened of the building as per clause 2.14 of unified BBLs-2016.
On dated 23.09.2022 in W.P. (C) 13789/2022 and C.M. APPL. 42151/2022 and CM APPL. 42152/2022 tilted as Vikas K. Chadha & Ors vs Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, the Hon'ble Court had disposed off the case with a direction that in case the petitioner obtains a contrary report from a certified structural engineer, he would be at liberty to approach MCD who may then take the requisite step and proceed in accordance with the law.
On the direction of Hon'ble High Court orders dated 23.09.2022, the owners/occupiers of the premises of building No. 49, Masjid Road, Bhogal, New Delhi approached to National Council for Cement & Building Materials (NCCBM) seeking structural safety/structural integrity and earthquake safety report.
As per the report of the NCCBM, the condition of the building is in a highly distressed/dilapidated state. For consideration of the NCCMB report, the said property was again inspected on 11.05.2023 by the undersigned along with concerned AE & JE with the help of Police Force, P.S. Nizamuddin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Considering the above, it is pertinent to mention here that none of the owners/occupiers have carried out repair of this building since the last 6 years with the reason best to known to them. The owners/occupiers of property are required to maintain the same and also to carry out requisite repair work under the supervision the Structural Engineer.
As per the local inquiry, the existing building was constructed at least 50 years back.
Keeping in view of the above, the overall condition of the building, the front portion of chajja and left side wall on the first & second floor, and the rear side staircase are in dilapidated condition. The building can be repaired/strengthened or retrofitted with the consultation of a Structural Engineer without any further loss of time in terms of the provision clause 2.14 of unified BBLs-2016 under intimation to the building department of Central Zone. Accordingly, the owners/occupiers may carry out the extensive repair under the supervision of Structural Engineering in terms of the provision of Building-bey-laws as above."
26. Ld. Counsel for the counter-claimant has submitted that the report dated 16.05.2023 submitted by the MCD before the CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 15 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHIT MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.20 14:36:07 +0700 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has given a finding to the effect that only some parts of the building in question are dilapidated and the building can be repaired/strengthened or retrofitted with the consultation of a Structural Engineer. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the counter-claimant has argued that the defence of the non- claimant on the basis of report of NCCBM report to the effect that the whole building in question has become dilapidated is misplaced and the non-claimant cannot take the shelter of the NCCBM report to escape from his duty to repair and maintain the chajja in question.
27. Ld. Counsel for the counter-claimant has submitted that the NCCBM has given a clear report to the effect that the whole building in question is in a highly distressed/dilapidated state and even carrying out testing of such structure is highly unsafe. Ld. Counsel for the counter-claimant has argued that the report of the MCD dated 16.05.2023 cannot be relied upon since the same was given by an Executive Engineer of the MCD who is not a structural engineer and not even competent to give findings on the issue of dilapidated status of a building.
28. The Court has perused the reports of the MCD and NCCBM discussed above. The Court is of the view that the question involved in the said reports i.e. whether the whole building at the suit property has become dilapidated or not, is not a question which has to be decided before decision upon the issue framed in the present counter-claim. The trial in the present counter-claim has not been conducted to decide this question. Thus, this Court cannot give a finding on this question. The relief CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 16 of 18 Digitally signed by MOHIT MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.20 14:36:16 +0700 sought in the present counter-claim is limited to the aspect of repair of the collapsed chajja due to which the ground floor owner/occupier is inconvenienced. The cause of action in the present counter-claim pertains only to the first floor and ground floor of the building and not the entire building. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the defence of the non-claimant that he is not liable to repair the chajja in question since the whole building has become dilapidated is not found to be tenable.
29. The counter-claim thus deserves to be partly allowed in terms of equitable and statutory obligations of the non-claimant. The claim of the counter-claimant to the extent of seeking directions to the non-claimant to restore the balcony in question to it's original condition cannot be allowed since it is the case of the counter-claimant himself that the said balcony on the first floor was an unauthorized/illegal protrusion on public land and was not permissible in the first place. The collapsed chajja of the balcony of the first floor was demolished by the MCD, however, the steel structures and protrusions from the collapsed balcony area of the first floor of the suit property that extend into the airspace above the ground floor of the suit property are a safety hazard to the ground floor occupant and also an impediment in use of ground floor shops portion by the counter-claimant.
30. In view of the above discussion, the issue no.1 is partly decided in favour of the counter-claimant and against the non- claimant and the counter-claim is partly allowed. A decree of mandatory injunction is passed in favour of the counter-claimant and against the non-claimant and the non-claimant is directed to CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 17 of 18 Digitally signed MOHIT by MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.20 14:36:25 +0700 repair the first-floor balcony (as existing after collapse and subsequent demolition action by MCD) of property no. 49, Masjid Road, Shiv Market, Jangpura (Bhogal), New Delhi-110014, to a structurally safe condition, within the plot line area of the property and to remove all steel/iron structures and protrusions from the collapsed balcony area that extend into the airspace above the ground floor owned by the counter-claimant, at his own cost.
31. Parties to bear their own costs.
32. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
33. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court on 13.06.2025 Digitally signed by MOHIT SHARMA MOHIT Date: SHARMA 2025.06.20 14:36:34 +0700 (Mohit Sharma)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS SCJ 810/2022 Dinesh Kumar Singhal Vs. Vikas K. Chadha Page 18 of 18