MAHARAJA ASHOK PAL Vs. N D P C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed the present suit on 3.2.90 for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant. New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) with the allegations that the plaintiff is a co-lessee of plot bearing No. 10 and measuring about one acre in Block 159 at 10, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi. The lease had been granted in favour of the plaintiff and his mother vide registered deed dt. 12.1.82. S.D. Madan is a duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff as well as his mother and has been entrusted with the work of construction of multi-storeyed building on the aforesaid plot. A plan for 8 stories with basement up to 80 feet height was sanctioned by NDMC vide Resolution No. 13 dt.12.11.84. The plan was revalidated upto 20.11.91 by the Administrator of NDMC vide Resolution No. 9 dt. 7.9.89 on depositing the compounding charges of Rs. 1.5 lakhs which was duly paid by the plaintiff. A second basement constructed by the plaintiff initially unauthorisedly, was also sanctioned on deposit of compounding charges. The multi-stored building is alleged to comprise of 45 flats which have to be sold to prospective buyers. Plaintiff has assured and promised such buyers to hand over furnished complete possession of their respective flats in August, 1990 and for that reason it employed more than 200 workers. Defendant (Officials of the defendant ?) had been periodically inspecting the progress of construction and found the same to its entire satisfaction. On 30.1.89, three employees of NDMC came for routine inspection and arted pointig some minor deviations. For instance, the balconies of the flats were originally sanctioned in rectangular shape whereas during contruction on the advice of its Architect, the plaintiff made curved balconies covering the same area for enhancement of aesthetic value of the building. Such a deviation fell in the category of minor deviations which did not need any priosanction. There were numerous instances, when such deviations were condoned by charging compounding fee at the time of applying for completion certificate. For instance, even, during the progress of the aforesaid building, the plaintiff constructed two basements instead of one sanctioned originally. The construction of the second basement was regularised by NDMC on payment of compounding charges.

(2.) The aforesaid Junior Engineers threatened to get the work stopped and sealed if their demand of huge gratification was not met by 3.2 90. Hence this suit for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the construction work by way of scaling the aforesaid building.

(3.) Alongwith this suit, the plaintiff also moved IA No. 858/90 u/Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 for grant of an ad interim ex parte injunction to the same effect Seeing the urgency of the matter, an ex parte temporary injunction was issued restraining the defendant from interfering with the construction of the building being carried on by the plaintiff till further orders. Notice of this application was also issued for 21 3 90. On that date it was stated on behalf of the defendant that copy of the application was not received. Matter was directed to be listed for 5.4.90. On 5.4.90, lawyers were not appearing and the Deputy Registrar adjourned the matter to 25.5.90.