SATENDRA NATH Vs. SUSHILA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sh.Satender Nath alleges to he the grandson of original tenant Sh.Sarveshwar Nath Nigam. The said Shri Sarveshwar Nath Nigam was inducted as a tenant on the ground floor of the premises in question vide registered tenancy agrefcmeni dated 26.1.1938. In the present suit the plaintiff has alleged that the unauthorised construction were in existence from the dale of the inception of this tenancy. There has in fact been no unauthorised construction. The plaintiff only carriod out permissible repairs for which under the building bye-laws of the Corporation, as per the building bye-law No.6.4.1, for these repairs no sanction of the Corporation was required. Moreover the construction having been carried out by the plaintiff the notice under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (In short the Act) ought to have been served on the plaintiff. In the absence of such a notice, the action of sealing and demolition is against the law. He had enquired from the landlords about the notice, they have eflso not received any such notice. Hence the suit. Alongwith this suit an application hearing 1.A. No.12017/94 seeking ad interim injunction against the defendants has been. filed. Vide ex parte order dated 30.12.1994, the Vacation Judge of this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo.

(2.) Notice of this application was issued to the defendants. Defendants No. 1 and 2 namely Smt.Sushila Rani and Mr.Y.N.Gupta, they are the landlords of the premises in question. Defendant No.3 is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in Short M.C.D.). On receipt of the notice of this application the M.C.D. contested this application, inter alia. on the grounds that plaintiff having alleged himself to be a tenant has no right to ask for the notice under the Act. Moreover, this is a collusive suit filed in connivance of landlords. He has concealed material facts from this Court. The averments made in the suit filed by defendant No.1, Smt.Sushila Rani, hearing S.No.2757/94 are para materia the same as in the present plaint. These facts amply prove that the present plaintiff has been put up by defendanls No. 1 and 2 i.e. the landlords in order to obtain stay order because they themselves failed to obtain the same against M.C.D's order of sealing and demolition. Defendant No.2 who is one of the landlord had filed an appeal under the Act before the Appellate Tribunal. After hearing the parlies, the Tribunal vide order dated 23.12.94 declined to slay the said demolition. Defendants No.1 and 2 have not filed any reply.

(3.) However, one Shri Sri Krishan Somani has filed an application seeking impleadment which was listed as I.A.475/95. He wants to invervene on the ground that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this Court. That he has vested interest in this litigation. He had in fact originally filed a suit against the landlords i.e. defendants 1 & 2 herein and against tenants of ground floor namely Shri Narender Nath Nigam and Dineshwar Nath Nigam, sons of the original tenant Shri S.N.Nigam, which was listed as Suil No.790/94 before Shri Gurdeep Kumar, Civil Judge, Delhi.