Delhi District Court
Smt. Sarla Devi (Since Deceased) vs Sh. Ashok Kumar on 31 July, 2012
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ARC (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
E-314/07
31.07.2012
1. Smt. Sarla Devi (since deceased)
through her legal heirs
(a) Sh. Lok Nath
(b) Sh. Khushoo Rai Chandani
(c) Sh. Bhola Ram
2. Sh. Lok Nath
All resident of 13-A/3, Old Rajinder Nagar,
Delhi. ...Petitioners
VERSUS
Sh. Ashok Kumar,
Prop. Ashoka Medical Store,
Shop No. 123, Front Portion,
Ground Floor, Shankar Market,
Shankar Road, New Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi. ...Respondent
Petition u/s 14 (1) (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act.
1. Date of institution of the case : 14.03.1997
2. Date of Judgment reserved : 24.07.2012
3. Date of Judgment pronounced : 31.07.2012
JUDGMENT
The brief facts as stated in the petition are that petitioners are owner/landlord of a shop no. 123, Front Portion, Ground Floor, Shankar Market, Shankar Road, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi as they have purchased the said shop vide registered sale deed from its previous owner in the year 1988. The respondent is an old tenant in the said shop measuring E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 1 of 16 //2// 12'6" x 19'6" as shown in red color in the site plan prior to purchase of it by the petitioner. The rent of the shop in question is Rs. 375/- per month excluding the electricity charges. It is further stated that the respondent has sublet the shop in question to Sh. Anil Kumar without any written or oral permission of the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondent has dug out the floor of the shop in question by about 5ft deep from the ground level and has made a basement. The respondent has also constructed five stairs to go down from the ground level to the basement and also constructed a mezanine floor by dividing the said shop into two portions and stairs to climb to the mezanine floor by wooden stairs. It is further stated that the respondent has also reduced the width of both side load bearing walls in order to make extra space to widen the shop in question. As such, the load bearing walls have become weak and the life of the suit premises has also been reduced. The respondent has done material and substantial additions, alterations and structural changes in the suit premises and caused substantial damage to the suit premises. A legal notice dated 12.12.1996 was served upon the respondent by registered AD and UPC but the respondent refused to receive the same. The petitioner had also filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondent restraining the respondent to make additions, alterations and substantial damages to the property. The Civil Court had also restrained the respondent to make such construction in the suit premises but despite that respondent flouted the order of the Civil Court. It is prayed that an order of eviction u/s 14 (1) (j) of DRC Act may kindly be passed in respect of the suit premises.
2. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it is stated that the suit premises was let out to three tenants namely Sh. Govind E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 2 of 16 //3// Ram Minocha, Ashok Kumar, respondent herein and Sh. Anil Kumar by the previous owner Smt. Lacchmi Devi. The tenancy was created jointly in the name of the above said three persons and all the three tenants are necessary parties. The ownership of the petitioner was denied for wants of knowledge by the respondent. It is denied that the respondent has made material substantial additions, alterations and structural changes in the tenanted premises without written consent and permission of the petitioner. It is further stated that no consent was required for carrying out incidental alteration and renovation work. At the time of letting out the premises, the shop in dispute was about 3-4 ft below from the road level. The mezanine wooden floor was also in existence which was later on renovated. The wooden structure was in dilapidated condition and the same was renovated. The petitioner had purchased the property after the renovation was done by the respondent. It was further denied that the respondent had dug out the floor by 5 ft deep from the ground level and had made a basement. It is further denied that the respondent had constructed five stairs to go down to the basement from the ground floor. The stairs were already in existence but the same were wooden stairs. It is further denied that the respondent had reduced the width of both sides of load bearing walls to take extra space. It is further stated that the respondent had carried out the fresh plaster on the side walls without increasing the space of the shop. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the MCD and the present respondent herein but the said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. It is denied that any notice was served upon the respondent. It is further stated that the site plan filed by the respondent is not as per site. All other averments made in the petition were denied.
E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 3 of 16//4//
3. Replication filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the averments made in the WS were denied and those made in the petition were reiterated and reaffirmed.
4. In order to prove their case, the petitioners have examined one Sh. Suresh Kumar, draftsman as AW-1, Ct. Rajesh Kumar, PS Rajinder Nagar examined as AW-2, Sh. Mam Raj, Office Incharge, Bldg. Deptt. MCD examined as AW-3, Sh. Jagdish Sharma, AZI, House Tax Deptt examined as AW-4, Sh. I.K.Jha, PS Rajinder Nagar examined as AW-5, Sh. Umaid Singh, Retd., Zonal Superintendent, Karol Bagh Zone, MCD examined as AW-6. Petitioner no. 2 has examined himself as AW-7
5. The documents which are exhibited in the evidence of petitioners are the site plan Ex. AW-1/A, copy of Roznamcha of PS Rajinder Nagar Ex. AW-2/1, copy of DD no. 10A dated 14.10.96 Ex. AW-2/2, copy of inspection report prepared by the General Branch, MCD on 18.10.1996 Ex. AW-3/1, report dated 23.10.96 Ex. AW-3/2, copy of order regarding enhancement of house tax is Ex. AW-4/1, certified copy of inspection report of house tax Inspector Ex. AW-4/2, copy of the report prepared on the basis of complaint dated 14.10.1996 and 16.10.1996 Ex. AW-5/1 and AW-5/2 respectively, copy of the inspection report of AW-6 Ex. AW-6/1, copy of the sale deed dated 24.06.1988 Ex. AW-1/1, copy of the SPA Ex. AW-1/2, site plan Ex. AW-1/3, copies of the plaint, written statement and the interim order are Ex. AW-1/4, Ex. AW-1/5 and Ex. AW-1/6 respectively, copy of the notice u/s 126 DMC Act Ex. AW-1/7, copy of the WS of MCD is Ex. AW-1/8, copies of the report to ZE (MCD) Ex. AW-1/9, copy of the letter dated 14.10.1997 of SHO Rajinder Nagar Ex. AW-1/10, copies of the notices dated 27.04.95, 31.03.96 and 12.12.96 are Ex. AW-1/11, AW-1/12 and AW-1/13 respectively. Ex. AW-3/1 and E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 4 of 16 //5// Ex. AW-6/1 is the same MCD inspection report dated 18.10.1996. Document put in the cross examination of AW-3 is the MCD report dated 29.10.96 Ex. AW-3/R1. Document put in the cross examination of AW-4 is the copy of notice sent to Lok Nath and Smt. Sarla Devi Ex. AW-4/R1, inspection report of the year 1994 Ex. AW-4/R2,
6. On the other hand, respondent has examined himself as RW-1 and his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-1, Sh. Atul Puri examined as RW-2 and his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R-2, Sh. Kamal Manchanda examined as RW-3 and his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R-3, Sh. S.K.Jain, Zonal Inspector, MCD, House Tax, Karol Bagh, Delhi examined as RW-4 and Sh. Bal Kishan Chauhan, Architect examined as RW-5.
7. The documents exhibited in the evidence of the respondent are the survey report of the MCD dated 19.05.1997 about the status of the shop as carried out by the MCD Ex. RW-1/2, petitioner filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court wherein the MCD through its commissioner filed an affidavit Ex. RW-1/3, copy of order Ex. RW-1/4, certified copy of the house tax records are Ex. RW-4/1 to Ex. RW-4/4 and the inspection report prepared by RW-5, Architect Ex. RW-5/1. The documents put in the cross examination of RW-1 are photograph of shop in question Ex. RW-1/P1 and the site plan Ex. RW-1/P-2. There is no document Ex. RW-1/1 in the affidavit of RW-1 nor in the file.
8. Arguments heard from the Ld. Counsel of both the parties. Entire record perused and considered.
9. Ld. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the following rulings :-
(i) Shri Anup Chand and others Vs. Shri Tarlok Singh, 1977 AIRCJ 754.
(ii) Mohinder Singh Vs. Om Parkash and others, 1978 (1) AIRCJ 406.E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 5 of 16
//6//
10. AW-1 deposed that he visited the suit premises and prepared the site plan Ex. AW-1/A which is correct according to site. AW-1 deposed in his cross examination that he has visited the site on 10.03.1997 but not visited the site before 10.03.1997. The site plan Ex. AW-1/A shows the position of the building as it was on 10.03.1997 but he could not tell what was the position of the building before 10.03.1997.
11. AW-3 deposed that property was inspected by the General Branch, MCD on 18.10.1996. The report dated 18.10.1996 Ex. AW-3/1. AW-3 further deposed that he could not say whether any unauthorized addition raised or not in the premises no. 123. AW-3 was again examined on 05.09.2002 and deposed that he had brought original report dated 18.10.1996 and 23.10.1996 and the copy of the same is Ex. PW-3/2 but he was not aware who visited the site. AW-3 further deposed that he could not read the name mentioned over the report dated 18.10.1996 in Ex. AW-3/1 and also could not tell the name of the person who signed the report dated 23.10.1996 Ex. AW-3/2. AW-3 deposed in his cross examination that the report dated 29.10.1996 was also made by officer in official capacity in due course and same was correct and Ex. AW-3/R-1.
12. AW-4 deposed that the order of enhancement of house tax regarding property no. 123, Shankar Road, Rajinder Nagar Ex. AW-4/1 and the certified copy of inspection report by House Tax Inspector Ex. AW-4/2. AW-4 deposed that the notice of enhancement was sent to Lok Nath and Smt. Sarla Devi and they both preferred objections against the notice, the photocopy of objection Ex. AW-4/R-1. Notice was not sent to the person in possession of the premises. AW-4 further deposed that there was one more inspection report of the year 1994 and the copy of the same is Ex. AW-4/R-2 which shows the old E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 6 of 16 //7// construction.
13. AW-6 deposed that he inspected the suit premises on 18.10.1996 and his report is Ex. AW-6/1. He inspected the site after receiving the complaint of unauthorized construction. Construction of basement was going on at the time of his visit. Earth which was dug out was lying outside. The construction was new at the time of his visit and he had mentioned all the facts in his report. AW-6 deposed in his cross examination that the duty of Superintendent Licensing Department is to remove the encroachment, to inspect the license and enforcement of any encroachment on the road, to issue the trade license. His duty is also to check unauthorized construction in the premises. AW-6 further deposed that he had not visited the suit premises before 18.10.1996 and was not aware what was the position of premises before 18.10.1996. Further cross of AW-6 was deferred at the request of Ld. Counsel for the respondent who want to summon the file to confront to the witness. On 26.07.2002, the cross was further deferred for want of certify the copy of the statement as not produced by the respondent.
14. AW-7 who is petitioner no. 2 deposed that only Sh. Ashok Kumar was inducted as tenant by the previous owner in the suit premises. AW-7 further deposed that the respondent alongwith Sh. Anil Kumar had carried out the material and substantial alteration, construction and structural changes in the suit premises without the consent of the landlord and further caused substantial damage to the suit premises. The respondent has dug up the floor of the tenanted premises up to 5 ft from the ground level and has also constructed mezanine floor with concrete roofing, unauthorized stair case has also been constructed to serve the mezanine floor. The fixing of the load bearing walls had also been reduced to increase space, thus weakened the E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 7 of 16 //8// strength of the property and causing risk to the life of the property of other occupants. AW-7 further deposed that due to illegal construction in the suit premises by the respondent, the house tax department of MCD had served a notice u/s 126 DMC Act and had increased the rateable value (RV) of the property due to additional construction in the tenanted portion by the respondent. The copy of the notice Ex. AW-1/7. The MCD had booked the unauthorized illegal construction in the suit premises to file the same in their written statement in Civil Suit No. 855/96 Ex. AW-1/8. The matter was also reported to the Police and the copy of report is Ex. AW-1/9.
15. AW-7 deposed in his cross examination that he did not know when Smt. Laxmi Devi let out the suit premises. AW-7 further deposed that when the suit premises was let out by Smt. Laxmi Devi, the terms and condition were not settled in his presence. AW-7 denied that when the suit premises was let out there were two portion of the shop. AW-7 further deposed that he had given a reply to the MCD notice u/s 126 of MCD Act. The reply Ex. AW-4/R-I as suggestion was given to the witness that no such reply was given because the notice was manipulated. AW-7 admitted that there was no plan of the premises in dispute on record prior to the addition and alteration but he voluntarily deposed that he could produced the same.
16. RW-1 deposed that the shop in question was originally let out to his father sometime in the year 1958 and he joined the business of chemist with his father in the year 1974. Later on, Anil Kumar was also joined the business in the year 1981. RW-1 further deposed that when the suit premises was let out in the year 1958, it was in two portions with parchhati at the height of 8 ft from the ground level of the shop in dispute. RW-1 further deposed that except for alterations and additions in the premises in dispute there was no E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 8 of 16 //9// other construction or change in the structure of the premises in dispute. RW-1 further deposed that his brother Sh. Anil MInocha removed the rotten wooden slabs of parchhati and replaced them with new strong slabs. This was required in order to carry out the business effectively. The old wooden parchhati was eaten away by termite and the same was beyond repairable and it posed danger to the life of the customers as it may fall at any point of time. The floor of the shop in dispute was also removed and new floor was laid.
17. RW-1, the respondent, deposed in his cross examination that he had mentioned in written statement regarding change of flooring as mentioned in his affidavit in para no. 14. The wooden parchati and the wooden stairs leading to the floor were constructed with the permission of the previous landlord. When the premises were taken on rent, the floor was 3 ft down below the road level. The permission was not in writing but it was oral and taken after 1958. RW-1 further deposed that he could not exactly say that the shop is 5 ft below from the road level. The stairs leading to the floor are of wooden and not pucca. RW-1 further deposed that he could not say that in 1996, the floor was made two feet deeper then previously existing. The floor was changed and get replaced by tiles. The wooden parchati was approximately 12 x 12 feet in the said shop but he could not give the exact measurement of the mezanine floor at present and could not say, if the existing mezanine floor is measuring 16 x 16 feet. While constructing the mezanine floor, he had removed the original structure and repaired the same by red stone. While doing so, T-Iron have been fixed in the walls. RW-1 further deposed that the photograph Ex. RW-1/P-1 is correct photograph of the shop and it represents the situation when the shop was taken on rent from the E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 9 of 16 //10// previous landlord. The site plan Ex. RW-1/P2 is correct site plan according to the site. RW-1 further deposed that they did not seek the permission from the landlord in the year 1996. RW-1 further deposed that after 1984, his brother was looking after the business, therefore, he could not say whether injunction was granted by the Civil Court in Civil Suit. RW-1 further deposed that he did not know, if the tenant had damaged the suit premises in the year 1996 as he had left the suit premises in the year 1984.
18. RW-2 deposed in his cross examination that he could not say, if the floor level is 5 ft below the road level. RW-2 further deposed that he could not say that the respondent had changed the wooden mezanine floor with stone slabs as he had never visited the mezanine floor and had seen it only from below. RW-2 further deposed that the stairs leading to mezanine floor earlier were on the left side of the shop and now on the right side of the shop. The deposition of RW-3 is almost similar to RW-2.
19. RW-4, a witness from House Tax, MCD deposed that in the year 1983, the rateable value (RV) of the property was Rs. 1,500/- for commercial and Rs. 1,860/- for residential. In 1996, enhancement notice of rateable value (RV) for Rs. 45,000/- was fixed. The said enhancement was due to addition in mezanine and ground floor by the occupier of the ground floor and mezanine floor.
20. RW-5, Architect who inspected the suit premises and filed his report Ex. RW-5/1. RW-5 deposed in his cross examination that he had gone to inspect the suit premises on 21.09.2005. RW-5 further deposed that generally, they prepare the report after 3-4 days after the inspection but in the present case, he prepared the report after a month.
E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 10 of 16//11//
21. Grounds u/s 14 (1) (j) of DRC Act In order to succeed an eviction u/s 14 (1) (j) of DRC Act, the landlord has to establish the following.
(i) That the tenant had made the construction (ii) That the construction was without consent of the landlord
(iii) That the said construction has materially affected the premises and further the construction which had been carried out by the tenant did materially altered the premises.
22. After considering the deposition made by both the parties it is not in dispute that respondent is tenant in the suit premises under the petitioners. The contention of the respondent that the suit premises was let out to 2-3 persons namely Sh. Govind Ram Minocha, Ashok Kumar, respondent herein and Sh. Anil Kumar has no substance in the absence of any evidence on record. The suit premises was let out by the previous owner to the respondent only. The respondent has denied that he had carried out any material substantial addition, alteration and structural changes in the suit premises, however, the respondent stated in his written statement that he had carried out renovation work only. From this, it is clear that something has been done in the suit premises. Whether it was merely renovation or addition and alteration which caused structural changes in the suit premises and caused substantial damage to the suit premises has to be examined. AW-6 Sh. Umaid Singh, Retd., Zonal Superintendent, Karol Bagh Zone, MCD categorically deposed that he inspected the suit premises on 18.10.1996 and prepared the report and the same is Ex. AW-6/1. AW-6 further deposed that the construction of basement was going on at the time of his visit. The earth which was dug out was lying outside and the construction was new at the time E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 11 of 16 //12// of his visit. There is hardly any contradiction in the cross examination of AW-6. AW-6 has duly proved his report Ex. AW-6/1. From the deposition of AW-6, it is proved that the respondent or the person who was in possession of the suit premises had dugged out the floor of the suit premises. The respondent took a defence that when the suit premises was let out its floor was already 3 ft down from the road level. For the sake of argument, if it is assumed that the level of floor was 3 ft down from the ground level at the time of its letting but the question arises why the respondent deposed that he could not say whether the shop is 5 ft down from the road level. RW-1 further deposed that he could not say, if in 1996, the floor was made 2 ft deeper then previously existing. RW-2 similarly deposed that he could not say, if the floor level of the shop in question is 5 ft below the road level. It is very important to mention here that RW-1 deposed that he did not know, if the tenant had damaged the suit premises in the year 1996 as he had left the suit premises in the year 1984. When respondent is tenant in the suit premises then, how he could say that he was not aware if any damage was done in the year 1996.
23. In view of the above discussions, it is proved that the respondent has dug out the floor of the suit premises in the year 1996. It is not in dispute that petitioner were owners in 1996 but no permission was taken from the petitioners. It is well settled law that digging out the floor of a tenanted premises amounts to substantial damage in the tenanted premises. It was held in Vidya Wati Vs. Bhoop Singh, 1979 Raj. LR 200 that lowering of floor level was considered to be causing substantial damage. It was held in Vipin Kumar Vs. Roshan Lal Anand and others, (1993) 2 SCC 614, if the floors of the tenanted premises were lowered then damage was an inevitable consequence.
E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 12 of 16//13//
24. AW-4 has proved the enhancement of House Tax vide Ex. AW-4/1. RW-4, General Inspector from House Tax, MCD deposed that in the year 1983, rateable value (RV) of the entire property was Rs. 1,500/- for commercial and Rs. 1,860/- for residential but in the year 1996 enhancement notice of rateable value (RV) for Rs. 45,000/- was fixed and the enhancement was due to addition in mezanine and ground floor by the occupier of the ground floor and mezanine floor. RW-4 who has been summoned by the respondent proved that due to the addition in mezanine and ground floor, the rateable value (RV) has been increased upto Rs. 45,000/-. This clearly proves that the respondent had enhanced the area of ground floor and mezanine floor. RW-1 deposed in his evidence that while constructing the mezanine floor, he had removed the original structure and repaired the same by red stone, while doing so, T-Iron had been fixed in the walls. This deposition of the respondent is self contradictory. On the one hand, he is saying that the mezanine floor was repaired but in the same breath he deposed that the original structure was removed and it was repaired by red stone. Removal of original wooden structure and constructing a mezanine floor with red stone slab having support of T-Iron fixed in the walls itself proves that addition and alteration have been done by the respondent in the suit premises. It is also admitted case of the respondent that the stairs going towards the mezanine floor from left side was changed to right side. It is also an alteration done by the respondent. I am of the considered view that changing of wooden mezanine floor by pucca floor with red stone slab with support of T-Iron has caused addition/alteration in the suit premises and the same has also caused substantial damage in the suit premises. The respondent has examined Architect who gave his report Ex. RW-5/1. I am of the considered view that E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 13 of 16 //14// report of RW-5 has no bearing to the facts of the present case, because he inspected the premises in the year 2005 whereas the addition and alteration was done in the year 1996. Not only this, RW-5 himself deposed that he prepared the report after about one month of the inspection of the suit premises. A report which was prepared after one month of the inspection do not have any value in the eyes of law. On the other hand AW-1 has duly proved that the site plan Ex. AW-1/A. The respondent has merely denied the correctness of site plan of petitioner but not filed his own site plan. It is held in Harivansh Lal Vs. Madan Lal, 1997 RLR 383 that "if landlord produces site plan and tenant does not produce counter site plan than landlord plan has to be accepted as correct".
25. So far as the other averments of the petitioner that respondent had reduced the width of both the side load bearing walls in order to make extra space in the shape, as there is hardly any evidence on record to substantiate these averments, I am of the considered view that petitioners have failed to prove it.
26. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that MCD Commissioner has filed affidavit in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi stating no addition or alteration done by the respondent, therefore, the evidence of AW-6 has no value. I do not find any substance in this contention because AW-6 categorically deposed that he visited the suit premises on 18.10.1996 and found that floor was being dug by the occupant. The deposition of an eye witness is more reliable than the affidavit of a person who had not visited the site. Ld. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that according to House/Property tax report Ex. AW-4/1, the suit shop has been shown is two portion having ground floor and mezanine floor, therefore, it is proved that from the very beginning the suit E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 14 of 16 //15// shop was in two portions. It is correct that the shop has been shown in two portion, in the back of Ex. AW-4/1, however, in the year 1996, the rateable value has been enhanced due to addition and alteration in it by the occupant. In Ex. AW-4/1, the area have been shown as 8'x12' and 12'x 12' but in Ex. AW-4/3 the area has been shown as 20'x12' and 11'x12' and it has been specifically written beside the measurement "Add by lowering the floor". Thus, it is duly proved that respondent has done addition in the suit premises by lowering its floor level. Ld. Counsel further argued that petitioner has not examined any expert to prove substantial damage. This submission again has no substance because, there are plethora of judgments that if floor level is lowered down, it amounts to addition and alteration causing substantial damages in property.
27. The rulings relied by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the said rulings the tenant had constructed false wooden roof, wooden stair but in the case in hand, the respondent has dug out the floor of the shop as well as reconstructed the wooden mezanine with red stone slabs etc. which amounts to substantial damage in the suit premises.
28. In view of the above discussions and as disclosed above, it is proved that the respondent has lowered the floor and also of shop in question by 2ft. The respondent has also removed the wooden mezanine and constructed a mezanine floor with red stone slabs with support of T-Iron. The respondent has also changed the stairs going to mezanine floor from left side to right side. All these acts done by the respondent caused substantial damage to the suit premises. The respondent has proved that the respondent has caused substantial damage to the suit premises. Accordingly, the present petition u/s E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 15 of 16 //16// 14 (1) (j) of DRC Act is allowed. However, sub section 10 of section 14 of DRC Act provides that no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made u/s 14 (1) (j), if the tenant, within such time may be specified in this behalf by the Controller carries out repairs to the damage caused to the satisfaction of the Controller or pays to the landlord such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct. Considering the provisions of section 14 (10) of DRC Act, the respondent is directed to carry out the repairs by raising the level of floor by two feet, replace the mezanine floor with complete wooden structure by removing red stone slabs and shift the stairs from right side to left side. The respondent is further directed to carry out all these repairs within three months from today and file the compliance report.
File be consigned to record room.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare separate file.
(Announced in the open court
on 31.07.2012) (Pritam Singh)
ARC/Central/Delhi
E-314/07 Sarla Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Page 16 of 16