(1.) This Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff who is the owner and occupant of a bungalow constructed on Plot No.5 A situated at Worli Sea Face, Mumbai 400 025, against his adjoining neighbour, the Defendant No.1 who is claimed to have illegally constructed its building on the adjoining plot No.5 thereby violating the various regulations of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay 1991 (DCR 1991) as well as the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the Rules thereunder and the exclusive licence/permission issued to Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff has sought decree against Defendant No.1 for the sum of Rs.10 crores as and by way of damages, with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of decree and/or payment or realization thereof as set out in the particulars of claim, which are annexed at Exhibit K to the plaint. The Plaintiff has also sought for setting aside the permission granted by Defendant Nos.2 to 5 to Defendant No.1 allowing Defendant No. 1 to construct a multi storeyed building with two storeyed basements on the said plot No.5 of Worli Sea Face and/or the permission to use dynamite for blasting the rocks. The other prayers sought for are consequential prayers.
(2.) It will be necessary to give a background of the facts.
(3.) The Plaintiff had addressed communications to Defendant No.4 on 21.10.1994 and 24.10.1994 complaining about the alleged activities carried on by Defendant No.1 and requesting for appropriate steps to maintain peace and safety in the area for the well being of the Plaintiff and his family members. The Plaintiff had also addressed communication to Defendant No.1 on 29.10.1994 to permit work to progress further only after getting it confirmed from the appropriate authority that this excavation and basic activity had not endangered the Plaintiff's building. The Plaintiff had addressed further letters to Defendant Nos.4 and 5 in 1994 which also pertained to the uncontrolled and unsupervised blasting undertaken by Defendant No.1 and to take action against the offenders. However, no action was taken by these Defendants. These communications are exhibited in the plaint filed by the Plaintiff. The Suit was filed in the year 1994.