Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Hence, the present suit praying that permanent injunction be granted against Defendant No. 1 and 2 and to restrain them from making any alteration to the ground floor of the property no. E­78. Further it is prayed that the illegal and unauthorised alteration already carried out should be directed to be demolished.

Averments of the Defendants

2. In the written statement filed by Defendant No. 1 he has stated that he is a doctor by profession and is therefore entitled to run a clinic from the ground floor of building no. E­78, Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The defendant has explained that he has only carried out certain ornamental changes in the suit property, to make it more conducive for running his clinic only. It is denied that any structural changes affecting the safety of the building or in violating the municipal   bylaws   were   carried   out   by   him.   This   defendant   has   further mentioned that the plaintiff has initiated this suit only to pressurize this defendant to sell the suit property to him at an unreasonably low price.

3.  Ex. D1W1/3 ­ Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

5.1 Thereafter Ms. Archana Agarwal appeared in the witness box as second witness on behalf of Defendant No. 1. She disposed that she is a qualified   architect   who   renders   architectural   consultancy   and   also undertakes interior designing work. She deposed that she was engaged by Defendant   No.   1   for   carrying   out   the   interior   designing     and   the   entire renovation work at the suit property was carried out under her supervision. She   state   that   no   structural   changes   affecting   the   safety   of   the   entire building no.  E­78 were carried out in the suit property. She further deposed that no load bearing wall/structural walls were even touched or removed at all in the suit property. She specifically stated that the renovation carried out in the suit property was not such as would cause any damage to the entire   building   no.   E­74.   She   exhibited   the   bill   raised   by   her   upon Defendant No. 1 as exhibit D1W2/2.

6.2 Coming   now   to   the   allegation   of   the   plaintiff   regarding   the building   having   been   made   structurally   unsafe   due   to   renovation   by defendant no. 1. The  professionally qualified architect who carried out the entire   alteration/renovation   in   the   suit   property   herself   appeared   in   the witness box and stated on oath that no load bearing/structural walls were removed in the suit property. She has stated that only partition walls of 4 ½ inch thickness had been removed to refurbish the suit property to suit the needs of Defendant No. 1, a doctor by profession. Although, this witness was thoroughly cross­examined, she stood firm by her chief examination and   no   material   contradiction   in   her   testimony   emerged.   Therefore,   her testimony demolishes the version of the plaintiff that load bearing walls in the suit property had been removed by the Defendant No. 1. Not only this, the   third   witness,   D1W3   who   is   a   professionally   qualified   structural consultant   has   also   placed   on   record   the   report   prepared   by   him   after inspection of the suit property supporting the testimony of defendant no. 1. His report Ex. D1W3/1 has been carefully perused. According to this report also   no   load   bearing   wall   was   removed   in   the   suit   property   and   only partition walls which were 4 ½ inches in thickness had been removed. Even CS No. 50353/2016 Sanjeev Chowdhry Vs. Raman Kapur & Ors. 10/15 before this court, this witness he deposed on oath that the alterations as carried out by the Defendant No. 1 cannot possibly cause any crack on the second floor of the building. He further categorically deposed that no harm can be caused to the building because of the removal of such partition walls. Although he was also cross­examined by the counsel for the plaintiff but he too stood firm by his testimony and his report. Considering the firm and unshaken testimony of this witness, specially since no objection regarding his professional qualification or experience was raised by the plaintiff, the testimony of this witness further lends weight to the case of the defendant that he did not carry out any structural changes and the testimony of this witness also further weakens the case of the plaintiff.

In contrast, the expert examined by the plaintiff i.e. PW­3 does not   inspire   much   confidence.   In   his   report   exhibit   P­1/35   he   has   only vaguely mentioned that he visited the suit property and after visiting the same   came   to   the   opinion   that   the   building   no.   E­78   is   structurally   not equipped to withstand any structural changes on the ground floor. Whether or not any structural changes were actually caused on the suit property has nowhere been mentioned by this witness. Therefore his statement that the building  is  not   equipped  to  withstand   any  structural  changes  in  the  suit property is only a vague and generalized one, in contrast to the report of D1W3, the engineer relied upon by the defendant who has specifically  CS No. 50353/2016 Sanjeev Chowdhry Vs. Raman Kapur & Ors. 11/15 stated  that  no  structural wall/load  bearing wall  was  removed in  the suit property. Thus the report of the expert examined by the defendant on this aspect   is   clearer,   more   direct   and   therefore   inspires   more   confidence. Therefore,   this   court   is   of   the   opinion   that   no   load   bearing   walls   were removed by the defendant no. 1 and the alteration carried out posed no threat to the property of the plaintiff.