S HARDAYAL SINGH MEHTA Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of the learned single judge restraining the appellants from running a guest house in premises No. 1373, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, till the disposal of the suit. The question in the present case assumes importance with the mushroom growth of guest houses/lodging house in Delhi.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent Smt. Nirmala Devi claims to be owner of property bearing Nos. 1371 and 1372 in Kashmere Gate, Delhi. She is residing there with her family on the first floor since 1959. Her family consists of her four sons, three daughters-in-law and their children. Her married daughter also visits her occasionally. The adjoining flat No. 1373 is owned by defendants Nos. 1 to 5. There is a common staircase to both these flats. Both these flat owners lay their claim to the ownership of the staircase but admit the right of user of each other. I, therefore, take it that the staircase is common. When one climbs up the stairs the flat of Nirmala Devi is on the left and that of defendants Nos. I to 5 on the right. Defendants Nos. I to 5 let out their flat to Shri Hardayal Singh Mehta and Smt. Surinder Kaur Mehta, wife of Shri Hardayal Singh Mehta, defendants Nos. 6 and 7 respectively (for short described as the Mehtas) in 1978. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is defendant No. 8, and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, has been impleaded as defendant No. 9 in the suit, which is primarily directed against the Mehtas who are running a guest house in the name of Paul Guest House in the flat. Nirmala Devi has filed the suit for injunction restraining the Mehtas from running the guest house and also for recovery of damages for damage caused to her premises on account of unauthorised constructions carried out in the flat under the tenancy of the Mehtas. Since admittedly the guest house is being run without any licence either from the Municipal Corporation or the Commissioner of Police, Nirmala Devi has also sought directions requiring both these authorities to prohibit and stop the running of the guest house.

(3.) Nirmala Devi has complained that the Mehtas made unauthorised constructions in October-November 1980 without any sanction under section 337 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and that the change of user of the flat from residential to commercial was also without permission under section 347 of the said Act. She estimated the actual damage to her flat on account of these unauthorised constructions at Rs. l,05,555.00 and further estimated that the value of her flat had diminished by about Rs. 5 lacs. In the suit she had claimed Rs. l,51,000.00 in all. This is something which does not concern us in the present appeal. Nirmala Devi has also claimed various other reliefs but again we are not concerned with the same in this appeal.