KEWAL RAM Vs. DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kewal Ram, petitioner, filed a suit on February 1, 1963 for a permanent injunction being granted against the Delhi Development Authority prohibiting them from demolishing "the plaintiff's shop cum house on about 945 square feet of land situate on the New Link Road, Jandewalan, Delhi" on the allegation that the plaintiff is in possession of the said prorty "built by him about 13 years ago" and on the further allegation that the officials of the defendant-respondent had on 28th January, 1963, inspite of vehement protests of the plaintiff, demolished a part of the structure. In the plaint the plaintiff further proceeded to state that the action of the defendant in demolishing part of the structure and the defendant's threat to demolish the whole of the structure was wrongful as the defendant had no right to take the law in its own hands. It was also pleaded in the plaint that the defendant cannot just send its officials and servants to demolish the structure belonging to the plaintiff without following the procedure prescribed by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. A definite allegation of the threatened act of the defendant being improper and amounting to unlawful interference with the plaintiff's rights of property was made in the plaint.

(2.) In its written statement dated 6th March, 1963 the defendant pleaded, inter alia, that the plaintiff is a trespasser on the plot of land in question and has, therefore, no right, title or interest therein. It was claimed by the defendant that "the plaintiff being a trespasser can be evicted without recourse to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958". In para 5 of the written statement it was averred that the plaintiff had no cause of of action.

(3.) The trial Court framed a preliminary issue to the following effect :- "Whether the plaint discloses causes of action ? By order dated March 25, 1963 the trial Court rejected the plaint of the suit under Order 7, rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. The appeal of the plaintiff under Order 41, rule I of the Code having been dismissed on t2th September, 1963 by the Court of Shri K. S. Sidhu, Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, the plaintiff has invoked the second appellate jurisdiction of this Court under section 100 of the Code.