LAWS(DLH)-2000-7-93

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. N APPUKUTTAN

Decided On July 03, 2000
MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Appellant
V/S
N.APPUKUTTAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of possession against the defendant in respect of a part of bungalow No. 5, Doctors Lane, New Delhi-110 001 as shown in red in the plan attached to the plaint. Alongwith the plaint a copy of the legal notice dated 8.7.1997 has also been filed, the third paragraph of which is important and reads as under: "That taking benefit of the abovesaid litigation which started in the year 1973 you have made unauthorised construction of a room in front of Lavatory Block of the back side rooms of the house of the ground floor. The room unauthorisedly constructed by you is of approximate measurement of 10' x 12'. The Lavatory Block was meant for the use of four persons residing in four rooms but you have now started using it yourself and are not allowing to use the same to others."

(2.) The suit was filed in May, 1998. A perusal of the Site Plan shows that the portion in occupation of the defendant included a room, verandah, kitchen, small open space and a W.C. and toilet immediately in line with and contiguous to the gate. During the pendency of the suit the defendant has filed the present application praying that the plaintiff be directed not to disturb the flow of water to the suit property by cutting off the water connection to the building occupied by the defendant and further to direct the plaintiff to resume the water supply forthwith. A long reply has been filed by the plaintiff inviting the Court's attention to details 660 of the litigation between the parties hereto. These are not relevant for disposal of the present application. However, in paragraph four the plaintiff has once again reiterated the stand taken by them in the legal notice adverted to above.

(3.) From the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the defendant/applicant has been in occupation of the premises for almost four decades. The defendant/ applicant undoubtedly enjoyed the use of the toilet and lavatory. The primary objection of the plaintiff was that the defendant / applicant was not permitting other occupants to use them. It is well-settled that status quo should be maintained by parties during the pendency of litigation. This principle is based on sound common sense and is calculated to obviate the necessity to file applications such as the present one.