Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -1-
CS DJ 14/24
RISHAB JAIN VS. HARCHARAN SINGH
30.03.2024
Present : Sh. Mayank, ld counsel for plaintiff with plaintiff.
Sh. Vineet Pawar, ld counsel for defendant with
defendant no. 1.
Sh. Harpreet Singh, ld counsel for defendant through
VC.
No receipt of payment of rent up to date is filed by
the plaintiff stating that defendants have never issued any receipt.
The counsels for defendant are appearing stating that
they have come to know about the listing of the matter on the
application filed by the plaintiff from the website of the court and
are appearing and are having no objections if the application for
injunction is taken up for hearing.
Submissions on the application of the plaintiff under
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC are heard.
By way of application the plaintiff is seeking orders
to
(a) Direct the defendants to cease the illegal construction taking
place on the roof of the House No. 1577/112, First Floor, Ganesh
Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi 110035, till the disposal of the present suit,
(b) Direct defendants to stop restraining the plaintiff, the
plaintiff's family members, along with the plaintiff's authorized
persons from entering the main building to access the plaintiff's
premises, till the disposal of the present suit,
(c) Direct defendants to restore the basic essentials/amenities, i.e.
-- 1 of 5 --
-2-
electricity connection, water connection, lift, and central locking
at the plaintiff's premises, till the disposal of the present suit,
(d) restrain the defendants to create ruckus or any other hindrance
to the plaintiff till the disposal of the present suit,
(e) pass any other/further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deed
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for perpetual
injunction alongwith mandatory injunction and damages cum
compensation with the averments that defendant no. 1 Harcharan
Singh is the owner of plot no. 1577/112 Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar,
Delhi 110035 and he agreed to let out flat no. 3A on the 3rd floor
of said property to him at the rate of Rs. 16500/- per month and
rent agreement dated 27.06.2023 was executed for 11 months. It
is alleged that the defendants commenced illegal construction on
the roof of the building which is directly above the premises
without providing any prior notice to him and the construction is
taking place with the aim of adding another floor to the building.
It is alleged that the construction is illegal and has been
undertaken without the necessary permission or approval from
the competent authority and that the same poses threat to the life
of the plaintiff and his family members. It is alleged that due to
the said construction the defendants have stopped the common
lift and sealed it which is causing difficulty to his parents in
accessing the premises, adversely affecting their health. It is
averred that the plaintiff approached the defendant multiple times
regarding the said illegal construction and damages caused and
on each occasion they used to behave by verbally abusing him. It
is averred that aggrieved by the illicit conduct of the defendant
-- 2 of 5 --
-3-
and further illegal construction undertaken by them the plaintiff
filed a complaint to MCD on 14.09.2023 and also filed a
complaint to SHO Keshav Puram but no action was taken by the
authorities. It is averred that plaintiff sent a legal notice to the
defendants on 15.09.2023 demanding the cessation of illegal
construction and sought compensation for the damages caused by
the said illegal construction and instead of stopping the illegal
construction they concocted a story and made false allegations
against the plaintiff and in their reply claimed that he had been in
default of rent payment from the very first date of lease. It is
alleged that in the second week of October 2023 defendants cut
the electricity and water supply of the premises without any
reason or prior notice as a result of which plaintiff and his family
were unable to access essential amenities, creating significant
difficulties in daily survival and carrying out day to day
activities. It is averred that the plaintiff once again sent legal
notice dated 04.11.2023 requesting the restoration of basic
essential/amenities including electricity connection, water
connection, lift and central locking but notice is nether complied
nor replied.
On the other hand it is claimed by the counsels
appearing for the defendants that plaintiff is a defaulter in
payment of rent and has filed the suit only to harass the defendant
and to extort the money from the defendants to vacate the
premises. It is stated that the suit for eviction has been filed
against the plaintiff which is pending before this court. It is
further submitted that the plaintiff himself gave in writing before
the police on 01.11.2023 that there is outstanding rent of two
-- 3 of 5 --
-4-
months. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not placed on file any
document to show the payment of rent and it is not possible that a
tenant will pay rent to the landlord in cash without taking any
receipt from the landlord if there is dispute between them and the
complaints before the police have also been lodged. It is averred
that the plaintiff who is defaulter cannot seek decree of injunction
from the court and not only the interim injunction application but
the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the rent
agreement is not registered as such the tenure of the tenancy is to
be considered by the court as month to month basis in view of the
Section 106 of TP Act and the defendant cannot be forced to keep
the plaintiff as tenant without receiving rent.
It is stated by the counsel for the plaintiff that the
writing from the plaintiff on 01.11.2023 was taken by the police
forcefully. It is stated by counsel for the defendant that this
contention is afterthought. The counsel for the plaintiff has relied
upon the case of Om Prakash Vs. Balkar Singh and Others
bearing CR-1153-2022 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab
& Haryana at Chandhigarh dated 19.12.2022 and Dilip(dead)
Through LRs vs. Satish & others bearing Criminal appeal no. 810
of 2022 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on
13.05.2022.
No doubt the electricity and water are basic
amenities and a tenant cannot be deprived by the landlord for the
amenities but the plaintiff in the present case is seeking relief of
injunction which is an equitable relief and it is well settled
principle of law that one who seeks equity must do equity. In the
case in hand the plaintiff has himself claimed that there is dispute
-- 4 of 5 --
-5-
between the parties and complaints to the police have also been
made and legal notice has been issued to the defendants twice. In
the circumstances it is not possible that the tenant will pay the
rent to the landlord without taking the receipt from him. If after
the dispute and issuing the notice the defendant refused to issue
the receipt in regard to payment of rent then plaintiff could have
pay the rent by way of banking transactions or money order to
avoid the allegations of the landlord about non payment of rent as
the defendant in reply to the first legal notice had raised the issue
of non payment of rent. The court is having no material before it,
at this stage, to presume that the plaintiff has paid the rent to the
defendant/landlord up to date. The ratio of the case laws relied
upon by the plaintiff is not applicable to the facts of the present
case as he is defaulter in making the rent to the landlord of the
premises and cannot be considered to grant equitable relief to
him. The application is dismissed accordingly.
The order of the court will not come in the way if
the plaintiff apply to the service provider for prepaid electricity
connection at the premises.
File be put up on the date already fixed i.e.
16.05.2024 for purpose fixed.
(SUNIL CHAUDHARY)
ADJ-04, North West,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
30.03.2024
-- 5 of 5 --