MEENA MITTAL Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L.P.A No. 856 of 2015.

(2.) One Ms. Renu Saxena acquired the rights in a vacant plot on which super structure is built, by way of a Lease Deed dated May 5, 1993. Today the property bears the No. A-181, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. On September 19, 1994 and July 29, 2004 Ms. Renu Saxena entered into Agreements to Sell with the appellant Ms. Meena Mittal for selling the first floor and ground floor of the super structure without the terrace rights. In the interregnum, on September 1, 2003 Ms. Renu Saxena entered into an Agreement to Sell with the respondents 2 and 3 qua the terrace rights on the first floor of the super structure then in place.

(3.) On September 2, 2004, the subject property was converted into freehold and Conveyance Deed was executed on October 26, 2004 in favour of Ms. Renu Saxena. It is noted that the appellant herein Ms. Meena Mittal filed a complaint dated March 10, 2008 addressed to the DDA, brought to its notice that she has not given her No Objection for construction of second and third floor of the aforementioned property. In her complaint, she raised concerns about the structural stability of the then existing super structure. On May 9, 2008 Ms. Renu Saxena filed for approval of additional building plan with the DDA. It is noted that Ms. Renu Saxena wrote to the DDA on November 3, 2008, November 17, 2008 and December 26, 2008 for grant of building sanction plan as, according to her she had completed the formalities in that regard. Based on the request of Ms. Renu Saxena, additional building plan for construction of second and third floor was sanctioned by the DDA on February 19, 2009. Having acquired the necessary sanction, the respondents 2 and 3 herein commenced construction in May, 2009. At this point of time, Ms. Meena Mittal, the appellant herein who was the owner and occupier of the ground and the first floor filed a suit for injunction in the District Court on May 21, 2009 and the suit was numbered as 828/2009. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents 2 and 3 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC. On such application, the plaint was rejected. The appellant herein, aggrieved by the said order carried the matter in appeal. The appeal is said to be pending before the Additional District Judge. It is noted from the learned Single Judge order that the appellant herein filed a suit for declaration in respect of the sanction of the building plan by DDA. The suit, however, was dismissed with liberty to approach the concerned Statutory Tribunal.