Sugar Apartments Flat Owners Society ... vs Sequoia Construction Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 31 March, 1993
6. The first defendant avers, in their reply and application for vacating the
interim order, and their counsel contends, that the plaintiffs ought not to be
given equitable relief, since they have practiced deceit and not divulged
material facts. According to the first defendant, the plaintiffs' attempt to get
an ad-interim order in the previous suit, was unsuccessful; it relied on a copy
of the order of the trial court, made in that case. Besides, it was urged that
apart from relying on the three letters, which were inter-se materials
between the plaintiffs and the third defendant, there was nothing to disclose
that the plaintiffs ever had exclusive possession, or of 37% of the terrace, or
of the walls, as contended by them. It was urged that in terms of the Delhi
Apartment Ownership Act, 1986, particularly, Section 3(j), roof and such
IA NOS 11151 & 11152/2008 IN CS(OS) 563/2008 Page 5
rights as were in question in the present case were "common areas". The
first defendant also contends that in the present day scenario, where safety
and security concerns of residents and occupants of high rise buildings are to
be addressed, there can be no exclusive rights in respect of terrace portions,
and in the eventuality of fire or other mishaps, the occupants would be
imperiled. Therefore, the first defendant urges that the court should not
grant the injunction sought for.