Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 8 of 45 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RANJAN PANT IN CS NO. 59490/2016

3. Ranjan Pant filed a written statement taking preliminary objection that correct site plan as per Registered Sale Deed executed between the parties and registered on 08.07.2002 had not been filed by Kanwal Chaudri.

4. Execution of Registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.2002 has not been denied. However, Ranjan Pant claims that he has the exclusive ownership of Apartment B including the staircase with appurtenants attached therewith and one servant quarter with attached toilet and also right to use the terrace and common toilet as per the Registered Sale Deed dated 08.07.2002. He asserts that staircase being part and parcel of apartment B alongwith two lofts had been purchased by him. He denies that he was only given the right to use common entrance, staircase, passage and necessary amenities like electricity, services and common water connection. It is stated that copy of the Registered Sale Deed was given to Kanwal Chaudri as agreed however, it was not accompanied by any site plan. It is stated that in the suit filed by him (will be referred to later), he had filed a site plan which is the site plan given to him by Kanwal Chaudri, herself. It is denied that Ranjan Pant had any malafide intentions to encroach upon, intrude or forcibly take possession of areas not sold to him. He admits that he had wanted to renovate the property purchased by him but denies that any permission was sought from Kanwal Chaudri and states that he had merely informed her. It is denied that Kanwal Chaudri is running an Art Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 9 of 45 Design Studio on the terrace and that he had blocked her entrance door to her studio by installing a steel door on the staircase. He has alleged that Kanwal Chaudri, herself got removed the window on the staircase and installed a door thereby, converting and using the same as a regular passage with out permission. Ranjan Pant states that during negotiation, it was clearly represented by Kanwal Chaudri to him that what was being sold to him was an independent flat without any hindrance as there was neither any access to the staircase from his staircase nor any construction on the terrace floor. It is denied that Kanwal Chaudri ever sought restoration of the staircase to its original shape. It is his case that being the owner of the staircase, he had protested and demanded removal of the door and usage of the same as regular passage by Kanwal Chaudri and her employees. Ranjan Pant has denied that there were any murals and delicate intricate tribal work on the outer wall of the flat and inner wall of the staircase. He also has stated that he had never obstructed or stopped Kanwal Chaudri from using the staircase but on many occasions requested Kanwal Chaudri not to use the staircase as a regular passage with the sole intention of harassing him and his family and to get removed the steel door got installed by her for the said purpose but the Kanwal Chaudri continued to interfere with peaceful and hassle free enjoyment of Apartment B. Ranjan Pant has alleged that damage to the property was done by the tenant of Kanwal Chaudri which was informed to Kanwal Chaudri and she replied on 18.06.2003, impliedly, refusing to take any steps. It is admitted that Kanwal Chaudri had again demanded copy of site plan through email dated 20.06.2003 but since he had already given copy of the same to the Kanwal Chaudri in 2002, there was no need to so son again. It is Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 10 of 45 admitted that on 21.06.2003, his workers used the terrace to install the DG set on the rooftop of the servant quarter owned by him but the Kanwal Chaudri unlawfully interfered with the said installation and prevented Ranjan Pant from lawful use and enjoyment of the property. It is stated that it was lawful to install 20KV DG set in the area for which permission was required from NDMC for which, Ranjan Pant had applied for the same. He has denied that his security guards removed iron grills from the window to create a secret passage to the terrace. It is denied that on 26.06.2003 or prior or later thereto, he had removed the name board of Kanwal Chaudri from the main entrance on the ground floor. He has stated that being the lawful owner, he got installed a new door as the old door was in a shabby and dilapidated condition for which no permission was required from Kanwal Chaudri. He has also denied that there was any agreement to replace the lock of the door and hand over keys also to Kanwal Chaudri. Incident dated 2-3 July 2003, is denied by Ranjan Pant. Rather, it is alleged that the Kanwal Chaudri stored her items inside the stair case illegally to harass him but later, herself removed the same under supervision of the police. As an owner, he has claimed the right to regulate movement of people in the disputed area for his own security. Ranjan Pant has also pleaded that there are two independent and separate staircases to reach the terrace, one alongwith portion of the property with Kanwal Chaudri and another with her servant quarters. However, still Kanwal Chaudri was interfering with peaceful enjoyment of the stair case owned and possessed by Ranjan Pant by making it a regular passage. He has denied use of force against Kanwal Chaudri on 08.07.2003. He has denied having taken forcible possession of the loft or to have broken Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 11 of 45 the wall leading to the common toilet or to have altered the common toilet or to have occupied the space next to common servant toilet, illegally. He has also denied that on 17-18 July 2003, he forcibly occupied the space adjacent to the stair case well on the ground floor. Allegations of concealment of purported site plan annexed with the Registered Sale Deed have been refuted and on the contrary, Ranjan Pant claims that he is a victim of fraud committed by Kanwal Chaudri who allegedly represented to him that the portion being sold to him is a compact independent portion having only a grilled window in the terrace.

(B) Exclusivity of Apartment B

33. Whereas, Kanwal Charudri asserts that vide Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2), she only sold Apartment B, measuring approximately 2250 sq. ft, to Ranjan Pant without terrace / roof rights with one servant quarter situated on the staircase leading to the terrace of the first floor and one common servant toilet as shown in the site plan attached to the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) by relying upon clauses 7, 16 and 24 of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2) and claims to have retained the ownership of the staircases, passages, common entrance, terrace and roof 27. Ranjan Pant has affirmed that he had purchased Portion B of Property no. 10A, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi admeasuring 2250 sq. ft. consisting of a drawing room cum dining room, 3 bedrooms, 3 toilet cum bathrooms, kitchen and pantry room, one servant quarter on the terrace of the first floor with one toilet and bath, the staircase and mezzanine floor, all rights, interests, privileges and appurtenances, easements, fitting and fixtures like lofts, proportionate and undivided ownership rights in the land underneath, all passages, accesses, two car parking in specified area in front of the entrance door portion at the ground floor alongwith right of visitors to part vehicles in the driveway and the right to all common areas and services and facilities, including right to use the roof, provided in the building28. 27 Refer to paragraph no. 8 of affidavit of the Kanwal Chaudri Ex. PW2/A 28 Paragraph no.4 of affidatvit of Ranjan Pant whch is Ex DW1/A Kanwal Chaudri vs. Rajan Pant Ranjan Pant vs. Kanwal Chaudri Page no. 33 of 45

36. Further, clause 3 provides as under :

"3. The VENDEE have the unencumbered right to use only the apartment / portion "B" of the floor, one servant quarter and one common toilet on the terrace of the first floor.""

37. Also, clause 6 mentions the following :

"6. The Vendee will have the unencumbered right to use only the apartment / portion 'B' of the first floor, one servant quarter and one toilet on the terrace of the first floor (mezzanine floor without any hindrance / obstruction from anyone in respect of the entire property so bought from Vendor and other owners) all its passages, staircases and accesses. The Vendee shall however, have rights of access to the terrace in common for inspection etc."

50. An argument has been offered on behalf of Kanwal Chaudri that as per the Registered Sale Deed34, keys of the common entrance was to be kept by the vendor and the vendee suggests that the staircase was meant to be common. However, it merely states that the parties had "common rights of the same" implying only to the entrance whereas consciously, common areas have been delineated for example clause 6 (where it states "terrace in common"). Kanwal Chaudri did not lead any evidence to show that the electricity expenses of the alleged common staircase was being borne by her since execution of the Registered Sale Deed (Ex. P1, Ex. P5 and Ex. P-1/2).