Rohini Suit

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ROHINI, DELHI
CS. NO………. OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
SURESH VASWANI
S/o Late Sh. S.R. Vaswani
R/o F-2/82, Sector 16,
Rohini, Delhi.
Also at –
B-1/276, Sector 17,

Rohini, Delhi. ….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Dr. SANJAY JAIN

S/o Not Known
Rohini Poly Clinic,
C-4/100, Sector-5,
Rohini, Delhi-110 085. …. DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Plaintiff is seized and possessed of and otherwise well

and sufficiently entitled to the entire built-up House/Property
bearing No. F-2/82, erected on a plot admeasuring 26 sq. yds.,
situated at Sector 16, in the Colony known as Rohini
(Residential Scheme), Delhi, (the plot and house built thereupon
shall hereinafter collectively referred as to the suit property) in
his own rights as lawful sole and absolute owner thereof, by
virtue of a registered agreement to sell dated ______ coupled
with registered general power of attorney also dated _______
(both documents duly registered as Doc. No. ______ Book No. I,

Vol. No. _______, on pages from ____ to ____ and Doc. No. ______
Book No. I, Vol. No. _______, on pages from ____ to _____
respectively on ______ in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Rohini,
Delhi).
The plaintiff had purchased the suit property from the erstwhile
owner of the suit property Sh. ____________ son of
__________________ R/o _____________________________, by way of
conveyance in the form of part performance, under the
aforesaid agreement to sell read with GPA dated _______,
whereby and where under the erstwhile owner Sh. _________
handed over the complete vacant physical possession to the
plaintiff after having received the entire sale consideration from
the plaintiff. Apart from aforesaid documents, the said ________
(previous owner) had also executed several documents, such as
Receipt, Possession Letter, Affidavit/s, Indemnity Bond and a
registered Will etc., as prevalent in the market for the sale of
leasehold properties in Delhi.
2. That the plaintiff is enjoying the suit property and has been in
peaceful, settled, continuous, uninterrupted and unhindered
possession of the suit property as lawful absolute and sole
owner thereof without any sort of objection, hindrance,
impediment, obstruction or interference of/from any one, ever
since he has acquired and purchased the suit property from its
previous owner. After having acquired the suit property, the
plaintiff got installed a permanent electricity connection of
NDPL. Since the suit property was not properly constructed and
the built-up area was less, the plaintiff reconstructed the same
with his own funds and raised a pucca structure with RCC roof
in the suit property. The factum of construction by the plaintiff
is duly recorded with the concerned departments.
3. That prior to the purchase by the plaintiff (by way of

conveyance in the form of part performance), the erstwhile
owner Sh.
___________ was seized and possessed of the suit property in his

own rights and was enjoying the suit property, its possession
and rent as lawful owner by virtue of registered agreement to
sell dated _______ coupled with registered general power of
attorney also dated ________. The said Sh. _________ (erstwhile
owner) had purchased the suit property from previous owner
Sh. ___________ under the aforesaid registered agreement to sell
dated _________ (by way of conveyance in the form of part
performance) whereby and where under, the said Sh.
______________ (previous owner) had handed over the complete
vacant physical possession of the suit property to the erstwhile
owner Sh. ______________ after having received the entire
valuable/sale consideration from him. Since the suit property
was a leasehold property, a registered general power of attorney
and registered Will dated _________ and other usual (for sale of
leasehold properties in Delhi) supporting documents were
executed by the previous owner Sh. ___________ in favour of the
erstwhile owner Shri _______________.
It is submitted that prior to the plaintiff, the erstwhile owner

Sh. __________ was also in continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful
and settled possession of the suit property ever since he
purchased the suit property from previous owner Sh.
__________. During the said period, he also gave the suit
property on rent for some time and enjoyed its rent. Before the
erstwhile owner Sh. ___ Maity came into possession, the
previous owner Sh. Samir Dass was seized and possessed of the
suit property ever since he constructed the same and prior to
construction, he was seized and possessed of the plot of land.
4. That the plot of land of the suit property was originally allotted
to one Shri ___________________ and Smt. ________________ by
the DDA vide Allotment Letter/File No. _________________ read
with Perpetual Lease Deed dated ______________. Subsequently,
the said Shri _______________ and Smt. ______________ entered
into an agreement with the previous owner Shri
__________(Dass) for the sale of the said plot to him (Sh. ____
Dass), and handed over the complete vacant physical
possession thereof to Sh. Samir Dass after having received the

entire sale consideration from him. The said allottees also
authorized Sh. Samir Dass as their attorney to complete the
sale and to do all necessary acts, deeds and things on their
behalf in furtherance to the said agreement.
5. That after having acquired the said plot, the said Sh. Samir
Dass constructed the said plot with his own funds and
resources in accordance to the sanctioned plan. The said Sh.
Samir Dass also got installed an electricity connection in the
suit property, which remained operative till new/permanent
meter is installed few months ago. He also paid the house tax
for quite some time. The suit property always remained in
continuous possession of Sh. Samir Dass, who had been
enjoying the same and its complete peaceful possession without
any interference, obstruction, question or interruption till the
same is sold by him to the erstwhile owner Sh. _________ Maity.
6. That some time in the month of _____ _____, the erstwhile owner
Sh. ______ Maity through its employer one Mr. Mikki offered to
sell the suit property to the plaintiff. After negotiation and due
deliberation, the price was settled between the parties subject to
clear and marketable title and the plaintiff agreed to purchase
the suit property absolutely free from all sorts of encumbrances
and defect and with clear marketable title. On being asked, the
said Sh. ______ Maity explained/showed the complete chain of
title to the plaintiff. However, few original documents pertaining
to allotment and title of Sh. Samir Dass were reported as
missing or mislaid by Since the plaintiff was not capable of
understanding
2. That the Plaintiffs are the tenants under the Defendant No.1
by virtue of Lease Agreement dated 01.05.2009, whereby the
Defendant No.1 let out to the Plaintiffs one Room/Unit, measuring
approx. 10 x 12 Sq. Ft. along with common Toilet/Bathroom, in/of
Property bearing No. 149/1 (adjacent to Property No.150) situated
at Village Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017, as also shown in red
colour in the site plan filed herewith, along with necessary
amenities (Hereinafter collectively referred to as the Suit Property)
for a period 3 (three) years commencing from 1 st May 2009 and
expiring on 30th April 2012 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1800/=
(Rupees Eighteen Hundred Only). The electricity and water
consumption charges are excluded. However the plaintiffs are the
statutory tenants and thus tenancy is protected by Delhi Rent
Control Act.
3. That the Defendant No.2 is the cousin brother of Defendant

No.1 and the owner and in possession of adjacent (other) portion of
the property bearing No. 149 (adjacent to Property No. 140 A)
situated at Village Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017, as also shown in
the said site plan enclosed herewith.
4. That the defendant No. 2 had been harassing the plaintiffs in

one way or the other since inception of tenancy. In fact, the
intentions of the defendant no. 2 were malafide and dishonest
since beginning and he never wanted the plaintiffs to remain there
and enjoy the demised premises so that he could usurp the
property of defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 2 is in habit of
picking-up squabble with the plaintiff. He tried hard to remove the

plaintiffs there from, while he does not have any connection, rights
or interest. When the plaintiffs did not care of these things, the
defendant No. 2 even offered another accommodation to the
plaintiffs, but they did not agree to that.
5. That the plaintiffs have been paying rent to the Defendant No.
1 regularly and punctually since inception of their tenancy but for
the last about one year, neither she herself came to collect the rent,
nor did she send any person. The plaintiffs also could not contact
her. In the mean time, the defendant no. 2 one day closed the
common way/passage (dividing the properties of defendants) by
erecting a wall, while plaintiffs were away at work. On being asked
as to how the plaintiffs would have access, ingress and egress, the
defendant no. 2 asked the plaintiffs to use the side way/passage
(from his own property side). Since the defendant No. 2 is very
aggressive and gets hyper as also always be ready for fight, the
plaintiffs in order to avoid confrontation agreed to the same and
started using the side entrance for ingress and egress on the
instance and instructions of the defendant no. 2. Though it is
apparent that D-2 must have done it with dishonest intention and
there must be something amiss, but the real cause/reason is best
known to the defendant no. 2.
6. That the defendant No. 2 and his son Mohd. Zuber have
threatened the plaintiffs many times in the past and asked them to
vacate the Suit Premises. Thereafter, the defendant No. 2 started
demanding rent/occupation charges from the plaintiffs for staying
in the Suit Property. On being asked about the reason or occasion
for paying such charges to defendant No.2, when the D-1 is the
owner and plaintiffs have been paying the rent to her, the
defendant No.2 furiously replied that if the plaintiff wants to reside
there, then they have to pay the charges for such occupation. Since
the plaintiffs were already paying the monthly rent to defendant
No.1, they asked the defendant No.2 to better clarify as to whom
the rent should be paid. But without going in to any controversy

the defendant No.2 very clearly and categorically stated that he
(defendant No.2) do not bother as to whether the rent is paid to
defendant No.1 or not but he wants a sum of Rs.1500/- (Rupees
Fifteen Hundred Only) per month for letting the plaintiffs to stay in
the Suit Property otherwise the plaintiffs had to vacate the suit
property.
7. That the plaintiffs are poor people, having their families and
surviving on meager incomes. Since it was not possible for them to
full-fill the illegal demand of the Defendant No. 2, they did not pay
any such illegal charges to the Defendant No. 2. In the mean time,
relative of Defendant No. 1 came and collected the rent from the
plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs are peace loving persons and do not
want to indulge in any controversy, they clearly told the defendant
no.2 that since they are statutory tenant under defendant no.1,
defendant no.2 has no right to get the suit property vacated from
the plaintiffs or to demand any charges illegally. On this the
defendant no.2 told a lie that it is her cousin sister (defendant
no.1) only who wants to get the suit property vacated and the
defendant no.2 is just following the instructions of defendant no.1,
though it was concocted falsity. However, the plaintiffs immediately
tried to contact the defendant no.1 to know the truth. Though he
could not contact defendant no. 1 personally but it has been
revealed by some relative of the D-1 that D-1 has never authorized
D-2 to interfere, take rent or get the demises premises vacated.
However, it might be possible that the defendant no.1 in
connivance with defendant no.2 wants to get the suit premises
vacated.
8. That when it became known to the defendant no.2, that the

plaintiffs would not meet his illegal demands, he (D-2) and his
family members again started troubling the plaintiffs, though the
plaintiffs always tried to tolerate their nuisance. On 22-23 August
2011, the plaintiff no. 2 was away and when the plaintiff No.1
came back to the suit property from the job, the defendant no.2
along with his sons Mohammad Zuber and Shah Nawaz came to
plaintiff No.1 and asked him to vacate the suit property
immediately. The plaintiff no.1 requested the defendant no.2 and
his sons that since he (plaintiff) had come from the job and is tired,
it would be better to talk next morning but the defendant no.2 did
not pay any heed to the request and instead threatened the
Plaintiff No. 1 with dire consequences. When the plaintiff clearly
refused to vacate, the defendant no.2 immediately took out the
sharp-edge weapon, may be Razor and bang on the forehead of the
plaintiff no.1. Not only that the sons Mohammad Zuber and Shah
Nawaz also joined the defendant no.2 and started beating up the
plaintiff no.1 without any rhyme and reason.
The plaintiff without wasting any time immediately called the Police
Control Room at 100 Number. Seeing this, the passers by along
with some neighbours intervened and stopped the defendant no. 2.
In the mean time Police arrived but before the plaintiff could
register the complaint, some well wishers/relatives of defendant
no.2 who are residing in the vicinity, intervened and requested the
plaintiff no.1 not initiate any legal action against them. Not only
that, in order to show sympathy with the plaintiff, they people
asked the defendant and his sons to apologies and accordingly the
defendant no.2 along with his children apologized and assured the
plaintiff that such thing would never happen again. Since the
plaintiffs were compel, not to initiate any action, as also defendant
pretended being repentant and apologetic, the plaintiffs did not
initiate any action and withdrawn the call/complaint.
9. That the defendant No. 2 and his family again repeated their
illegal acts. On 29th August 2011, because of Eid celebrations, both
the plaintiffs were away at their native villages. The plaintiff no. 1
was at Mithapur, P.O. Gulauthi, District Buland Shahr, Uttar
Pradesh. When they came back on 2nd September 2011, they found
that the premises had been locked with some other lock, i.e lock
upon lock. However, after great persuasion, the lock was removed,
but the defendant again said that he will not let the plaintiffs
remain there.
The plaintiffs even thought of seeking the police assistance but

when they went to the concerned Police Station, the police officials
refused to lodge the complaint and the plaintiffs were told that it is
a civil matter, thus police would not do anything in this.
10. That again on 23rd September 2011, the defendant no.2 along
with his sons and two-three relatives came to the plaintiffs and
asked the plaintiffs that he is giving them one week time to vacate
the suit property by 30th September 2011. He threatened the
plaintiffs that in case the plaintiffs failed to vacate the premises on
30th September, they will forcibly throw them out and the goods
lying in the suit property will also be sold. When the plaintiff told
the defendant no.2 that their activities are illegal and unlawful and
they should better refrain there from, the defendant no.2 slapped
the plaintiff no.1 and clearly told him/them to take it as a last and
final warning. The defendant no.2 even went to that extent that he
told the plaintiffs that as far as possession is concerned, what may
come he will certainly take it on 30 th September and this time he
would call his relatives/brothers-in-law (known criminals and
gangsters in Meerut) who would cut them (plaintiffs) in to pieces.
It is submitted that while all this was going on, the Defendant No.
2 told his son to bring plain papers and get them signed from the
plaintiffs. Accordingly son of the defendant no. 2 brought two blank
papers and plaintiffs were made/forced to sign the same (blank),
without writing anything in front of the plaintiffs. The papers were
that of roller (lines) and defendant no. 2 after affixing some ticket/
stamp (almost in the middle or below the middle) on the same
asked the plaintiffs to sign in such a manner, that half signatures
should come on ticket and half on plain. Though both the plaintiffs
signed the different blank papers in a similar manner but the
plaintiff no. 1 was asked to append other signatures below
stamp/ticket, due to reason better known to defendant. The
plaintiff requested the defendant that he should better fill/write
whatever he wants to write but do not keep duly signed blank
papers with him. On being asked as to what the defendant intend
to write and why he has affixed a ticket, the son of defendant
abused the plaintiffs and said “tumhare paas bahut paise hein jo
hum likh lenge” that is to say, you have lot of money, which we
would write on it. In fact, he meant to say contrary. Howsoever,
thereafter, on the advice of some relative of the defendant, he got
the papers filled from him. The plaintiff no. 1 again requested the
defendant to show as to what has been written and give a copy
thereof. On this, it was told that they have made a simple
undertaking that plaintiffs will vacate the suit property on 30 th
September 2011. But neither it was shown properly, nor did they
give copy thereof to the plaintiffs. In the manner aforesaid, the
defendant obtained signatures of the plaintiffs on the said papers
in an illegal manner.
11. That neither the plaintiffs are the tenants of Defendant No. 2,
nor the defendant No. 2 is the owner/land lord of the suit
premises, yet he wants to usurp the same due to malafide and
dishonest intentions. The defendants cannot be permitted to take
law in their hands and to illegally evict the plaintiffs. Otherwise
also, the plaintiffs are the statutory tenants under Delhi Rent
Control Act and what to talk of defendant no. 2, even defendant no.
1, who is the actual owner/ landlady cannot evict the plaintiffs
without due process of law. It has now come to the notice that in
fact the defendant no. 2 always had dishonest intention and evil
eyes on the property and wanted to grab not only the suit property
but the entire property of Defendant No. 1.
It is submitted that the defendant No. 2 and his family have

already attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs several times earlier
also and it has become routine matter. Though the defendant
literally fought yet the plaintiffs always thought that how defendant
could forcibly take property which is the property of defendant no.
1. Thus even this time also, the plaintiffs did not take it seriously
and three-four days have already passed. But today, some well
wisher (happens to be defendant’s relative) has told the plaintiff
that this time there is lot of difference, and the defendant has
already made preparation. It has been revealed that defendant will
misuse the signed paper and will use it as a device and even the
defendant has also made arrangement with area beat police men.
Not only that, the defendant could resort to fighting with the help
of musclemen.
12. That in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as

the threatening by the defendant, the plaintiffs are apprehending
that the defendant No. 2 and his men will use the muscle power
and throw the plaintiffs and their belongings on the road on 30 th
September 2011 itself, as already threatened by them. There is
likelihood of their taking law in hands and evict the plaintiffs
without due process of law. If the defendant and his men are not
stopped/restrained from taking law in their hands and from taking
forcible possession of the suit property, not only the plaintiffs, but
the defendant no. 1 (who is the real owner/landlady) will also
suffer great loss and injury, to which there will be no adequate
relief, except injunction. Therefore the plaintiffs have no other
efficacious remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court to protect
their valuable and statutory rights and to restrain the Defendants
from dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the Suit Property without
due process of law and also from creating any hindrance in the
peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs.
13. That the cause of action first arose when the plaintiffs were
inducted by defendant No. 1 in tenancy in respect of suit premises
(as mentioned above and also shown in the plan) vide duly
executed lease agreement dated 01.05.2009. The cause of action
arose several times, when defendant no. 2 caused obstructions,
hindrance and interference and asked the plaintiffs to vacate the
suit property. It further arose when the defendant No.2 and his
sons and family quarreled for no reason. The cause of action for
filing the present suit finally arose on 23.09.2011, when the
defendant, his sons and few relatives not only threatened the
plaintiffs with dire consequences and to evict them forcibly on
30.09.2011 but forcibly took signatures on paper. The cause of
action further arose as there is likelihood of defendant’s taking law
in his hands and forcibly evicts the plaintiffs. The cause of action is
still subsisting.
14. That the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees and
jurisdiction on the relief of permanent injunction is fixed at Rs.
130/- and the requisite court fee has been affixed/paid along with
the suit.
15. That this Hon’ble Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try
and entertain the present suit as the suit property is situated
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and parties to the
suit are also residing and working for gain within the jurisdiction
of this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER:
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and
submissions made in the Plaint, it is prayed that this Hon. Court
may be pleased to pass:
a) a decree of Permanent Injunction, thereby restraining the

Defendants, their agents, servants, musclemen, relatives,
assignees and representative or any other person claiming through
or under them from dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the suit
property i.e. Room/Unit measuring approx. 10 x 12 Sq. ft., in/of
at Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017, with common toilet/bathroom as
more precisely shown in red colour in the site plan annexed
herewith, without due process of law.
b) Costs of the Suit may be awarded to the plaintiffs.
c) Any other order or orders as this Hon. Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be
passed.
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 27.09.2011
PLAINTIFFS
Through
Counsel
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this 27th day of September

2011 that the contents of Para 1 to 12 of the plaint are true and
correct to our knowledge and that of Para 13 to 15 are believed
to be true and correct on the basis of information received. The
last para of the plaint is prayer to this Hon’ble Court.
PLAINTI
FFS
PRAYER:
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above

and submissions made in the Plaint, it is prayed that this
Hon. Court may be pleased to pass:
a) a decree of Permanent Injunction, thereby

restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, assignees
and representative or any other person claiming through or
under them from dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the suit
property i.e. Room/Unit measuring approx. 10 x 12 Sq. ft.,
in/of Property bearing No. 149/1, (adjacent to Property
No.150) situated at Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017, as more
precisely shown in red colour in the site plan annexed
herewith.
b) And further the Defendants may kindly be
restrained from selling, transferring, mortgaging, alienating or
creating any third party interest in respect of the Suit
Property.
c) Costs of the Suit may be awarded to the plaintiffs.
d) Any other order or orders as this Hon. Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may also be passed.
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 12.09.2011
PLAINTIFFS
Through
Counsel
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this 12 th day of September

2011 that the contents of Para 1 to ___ of the plaint are true
and correct to our knowledge and that of Para ___ to ___ are
believed to be true and correct on the basis of information
received. The last para of the plaint is prayer to this Hon’ble
Court.
PLAINTI
FFS
b) Pass any such order (s) or direction (s) as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case in favour of the Plaintiffs
and against the Defendants.
Place: New Delhi
Dated: ___.09.2011
Plaintiffs
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOUTH, NEW DELHI
CS. No……… of 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mobin & Another ... Plaintiffs
Versus
Khadija. & Another … Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mohd. Hussain, aged about 32 years, son of Wakar Hussain

resident of 149/1, Hauzrani, New Delhi 110017, do hereby
solemnly affirm, declare and depose as under:-
1. That I am the Plaintiff No.2 in the present Suit and as such I

am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case
and hence I am competent to swear this Affidavit.
2. That the accompanying application under Order 39 Rule 1 &
2 read with section 151 CPC has been drafted by my counsel
under my instructions and the contents of which have been read
over and explained to me in vernacular and the same are not being
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at New Delhi on this the ______ day of September

2011, that I, Ram Kumar, the above named deponent, do hereby
declare and verify that the contents of Para 1 and 2 of the
aforesaid Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief and nothing stated therein is false or wrong and nothing
material has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT
CS. No……… of 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
Khadija & Another … Defendants

AFFIDAVIT
I, Ram Kumar son of Shri Kalika Prasad resident of 149/1,

Hauzrani, New Delhi 110017, do hereby solemnly affirm, declare
and depose as under:-


DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-

DEPONENT
22-23 august 2011 – cause of action
Called pcr that sheru along with his son Mohd. Zuber and Shah
Nawaz beated me with sharpen weapon.
On head and forehead
Unauthorizedly tried to dispossess me
During eid went to parental village meethepur . p.o gulauthi,

district buland shaher u.p. 29th august
2nd September – locked the premises
Wife of sheru - sabra
Felt ill
During rain fall
5th September 2011 - gave undertaking
To vacate the premises by 30th septermber failing which face the

consequences.
To take the photocopy
Driver in bus (gramin seva)
Last 8 years – sher mohd. portion
Last 3 years – in khadija portion

Mr. SIRAJ AHMED SON OF NISAR AHMED RESIDENT -------
WIFE – SHANNO BEGUM
DAUGHTER – SHABA KHAN AND TANNO KHAN
SON - YAMIN KHAN
DAUGHTERS
HEENA KHAN & ARIBA KHAN

DJB – PUMP OPERATOR
3 YEARS – 2000 P.M. EXCLUDING ELECTRICITY AND
COMMON BATHROOM AND TOILET
1. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier there was a

separate entrance from the middle through a common passage
to the property of Defendant No. 1 as well as suit property and
to Defendant No. 2 also, but some time ago, the defendant No.
2 closed the middle passage and told the plaintiffs to use the
side entrance (adjacent to Property No. 140 A). Since the
defendant No. 2 is
2. That the Defendant No.1 is the owner of Property bearing No.

149/1 (adjacent to Property No.150-152) situated at Village
Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017.
3. That the Plaintiffs are the statutory tenants, inducted by the

Defendant No.1 vide Lease Deed/Agreement dated 01.05.2008
whereby and where under the Defendant No.1 let out to the
Plaintiffs one Room/Unit, measuring approx. 10 x 12 Sq. Ft.
along with common Toilet/Bathroom, in/of Property bearing
No. 149/1 (adjacent to Property No.150) situated at Village
Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017, as more precisely shown in red
colour in the site plan annexed herewith, along with necessary
amenities (Hereinafter collectively referred to as the Suit
Property) for a period 5 (five) years commencing from 1 st May
2008 and expiring on 30th April 2013 on a monthly rent of Rs.
3000/= (Rupees Three Thousand Only) which stood enhanced
to Rs. 3200/- (Rupees Thirty Two Hundred Only) per month
on 1st May 2010. The electricity and water consumption
charges are excluded. However the plaintiffs are the
statutory tenants and thus tenancy is protected by Delhi
Rent Control Act.

No.1 and the owner and in possession of adjacent (other)
portion of the property bearing No. 149 (adjacent to Property
No. 140 A) situated at Village Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017,
as more precisely shown in green colour in the site plan
annexed herewith.
5. That the brief facts which have given rise to filing of the
present suit are as under:
a. That the Plaintiffs were enjoying the Suit Property being

statutory tenants under the Defendant No.1, vide Lease
Deed/Agreement dated 01.05.2008, paying thereof a monthly
rent of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) which stood
enhanced to Rs. 3200/- (Rupees Thirty Two Hundred Only) on
01.05.2010.
b. That right from the day of induction, the Defendant No. 2 had
an evil eye on the Suit Property as well as other part of the
property of D-1. The Defendant No.2 did does not want the
plaintiffs and/or any other person to stay there in the suit
property. The Defendant No.2 tried hard to get the Suit
Property vacated from the Plaintiffs on one or the other
pretext. He even gave the proposal to the plaintiffs to get them
a better tenanted place in a lesser rent, due to the reason best
known to him but when the plaintiffs did not agree to it he
could not succeeded in his ill motive, he (Defendant No.2) in
the month of July 2010 along with his son Mohd. Zuber came
to the plaintiffs and asked the plaintiffs in a threatening tone
to vacate the Suit Premises or else, pay the occupation
charges for staying in the Suit Property. On being asked about
the reason for paying such illegal occupation charges to
defendant No.2 and especially when the plaintiffs were paying
the rent to the owner/defendant No.1. To this the defendant
No.2 furiously replied that if the plaintiffs want to reside, then
they had to pay the charges for such occupation. Since the
plaintiffs were already paying the monthly rent to defendant
No.1, they asked the defendant No.2 to better clarify as to
whom the rent should be paid. But without going in to any
controversy the defendant No.2 very clearly and categorically
stated that he (defendant No.2) do not bother as to whether
the rent is paid to defendant No.1 or not but he wants a sum
of Rs.1500/- (Rupees Fifteen Hundred Only) per month for
letting the plaintiffs to stay in the Suit Property otherwise the
plaintiffs had to vacate the suit property.
c. The plaintiffs are hand to hand to mouth and running their

house and maintaining the family with great difficulty, it was
not possible for the plaintiffs to pay such an illegal and
arbitrary amount to defendant no.2 but it is also true that the
plaintiffs are law abiding citizen and does not want to create
any problem for them and their family which debar them from
earning their livelihood. The plaintiffs tried to contact the
defendant no.1 but to no avail. The defendant no. 1 did not
come forward. She did not even collect the rent since
September 2010.
d. The plaintiffs even thought of seeking the police assistance

but when they went to the concerned Police Station, the police
officials refused to lodge the complaint and the plaintiffs were
told that it is a civil matter, thus police would not do anything
in this. Since there was no other option as the defendant no.2
and his family members were creating problems and
obstruction for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs thought of paying
such illegal and untenable amount. Finally after negotiations,
the plaintiffs started paying Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand
Only) to the defendant No.2. When the plaintiffs asked the
defendant No.2 to give some receipt or acknowledgement of
the said amount, the defendant No.2 got furious and replied
that this is a mere amount for letting the plaintiffs stay in a
suit property and not a rent for which the receipt to be issued.
e. That thereafter the plaintiffs started paying such charges to

the defendant no.2 and started living there without any
hindrance or obstruction from defendant no.2 but not for
much time. In the second week of May 2011, the defendant
No.2 again came to the plaintiff no.1 and asked him to vacate
the Suit Property. The plaintiff no.1 thought that probably the
defendant no.2 wanted to increase the charges and that is the
reason the defendant no.2 wanted to get the premises vacate
but the plaintiffs clearly told the defendant no.2 that since
they are already paying such illegal charges to defendant no.2
with great difficulty inspite of the fact that neither the
defendant no.2 is the landlord nor the owner and thus they
refused to pay any extra/further amount.
f. Since the plaintiffs are peace loving persons, they do not want
to indulge in any controversy. The plaintiffs clearly told the
defendant no.2 that since the lease has been executed by
defendant no.1 and they are statutory tenant under defendant
no.1, defendant no.2 has no right to get the suit property
vacated from the plaintiffs and it is only the defendant no.1
that has the right to get the suit property vacated. On this the
defendant no.2 told that it is defendant no.1 only who wants
to get the suit property vacated and the defendant no.2 is just
following the instructions of defendant no.1. On this the
plaintiffs immediately tried to contact the defendant no.1 to
know the truth but could not contact her. They also visited
the defendant no.1 personally but to no avail.
It is submitted that despite many efforts, the plaintiffs could

not contact the defendant no.1. The plaintiffs thought that
either the defendant no.1 in connivance with defendant no.2
wants to get the suit property vacated from the plaintiffs, who
are the statutory tenant or in the absence of defendant no.1,
the defendant no.2 wants to grab the suit property. But since
the plaintiffs were busy in earning there livelihood and were
concerned with the tenancy only and had nothing to do with
the ownership or claimant of the suit property, the plaintiffs
kept mum.
g. That the defendant no.2 and his family members again started
troubling the plaintiffs. But the plaintiffs always tried to
tolerate the nuisance of the defendant no.2. But this was not
the end, on 22-23 August 2011, when the plaintiff No.1 came
back to his house (suit property) from the job, the defendant
no.2 along with his sons Mohammad Zuber and Shah Nawaz
came to plaintiff No.1 and asked him to vacate the suit
property immediately. The plaintiff no.1 requested the
defendant no.2 and his sons that since he (plaintiff) had come
from the job and is tired, it would be better to talk next
morning but the defendant no.2 again repeated the same
thing and asked to vacate the suit property. When the plaintiff
refused, the defendant no.2 immediately took out the sharp-
edge weapon and bang on the forehead of the plaintiff no.1.
Not only that the sons Mohammad Zuber and Shah Nawaz
also joined the defendant no.2 and started beating the plaintiff
no.1 without any rhyme and reason.
h. That the plaintiffs immediately called the PCR. Seeing this, the
passers by along with some neighbours intervened and
stopped the defendant no. 2. They also asked the defendant
No.2 to apologize for such intolerable behavior. Before the
plaintiffs could register their complaint to PCR and concerned
police station, the well wishers of defendant no.2 intervened
and requested the plaintiff no.1 not initiate any legal action
against them. Not only that, the defendant no.2 along with his
children also apologized and assured the plaintiffs that such
thing would never happen again. Since the plaintiffs were
compel not initiate any action as the good sense has prevailed
upon the defendants, they did not initiate any action and
withdrawn the call/complaint.
i. That on 29th August 2011, the plaintiff no. 1 went to his
parental village to celebrate Eid at Mithapur, P.O. Gulauthi,
District Buland Shahr, Uttar Pradesh. He also took the
plaintiff no.2 along with him. When they came back on 2 nd
September 2011, after celebrating the eid, they found that the
premises had been locked by some other lock. When the
plaintiffs tried to inquire from the other occupants/tenants of
the building/property, the wife of the defendant no.2 came out
and told the plaintiffs that she had put the other lock. When
the plaintiffs asked the wife of the defendant no.2 not to start
again, she gave a weird smile and told that this time she won’t
even allow the plaintiffs to enter the suit premises and the
goods lying in the suit property would also not be given back.
The plaintiffs requested the defendant No.2 and his family to
let them enter the suit premises but to no avail and as a result
the plaintiffs had to stay out of the suit property. Due to heavy
rain fall during those days, the plaintiff no.1 fell ill and
suffered viral fever. The plaintiffs remained out for 2 days and
finally on 5th September 2011 somehow the plaintiffs
succeeded in retaining back the Suit Property.
j. That though with the help of the neibhours, the plaintiffs were
allowed to use and occupy the Suit Property but the defendant
no.2 in connivance with neighbours took the signature of the
plaintiff no.1 on the court fee duly affixed on the plain/blank
paper. The defendant no.2 as well as his family members,
relatives, etc. mounted so much pressure on the plaintiffs that
they got the paper signed from the plaintiff no.1. When the
plaintiff no.1 tried to inquire about the document, it was told
that it’s just a mere undertaking. Before the plaintiffs could
inquire something more, they were asked to keep quiet
otherwise the keys would not be handed over to them. Since
the plaintiffs did not want to indulge in fight, they simply took
the keys from the defendant no.2 and went inside the suit
property.
k. That again on 15th September 2011, the defendant no.2 came

to the plaintiffs and asked the plaintiffs to vacate the suit
property by 30th September 2011 and threatened the plaintiffs
that in case if the plaintiffs failed to vacate the premises, they
would not spare the plaintiffs and throw them out and the
goods lying in the suit property would also be sold. When the
plaintiffs asked the defendant no.2 to stop this daily
nonsense, the defendant no.2 slapped the plaintiff no.2 and
clearly told him/them to take it as a last and final warning.
The defendant no.2 even went to that extent that he told the
plaintiffs that as far as possession is concerned, he would
certainly take it but this time he would call his brother-in-
laws who are gangsters in Meerut who would cut them
(plaintiffs) in to pieces.
l. That the plaintiffs tried to contact the defendant no.1 but

could not get any response. When the plaintiffs tried to
investigate the motive behind the vacation of plaintiffs, it was
revealed to them, that the defendant no.2 in garb of
collaboration/development wants to grab the suit property,
infact the entire property. Though the plaintiffs tried to inquire
more about the role of defendant no.1 as to whether the
defendant no.1 also have hand in gloves with defendant no.2
or it is only the evil mind of defendant no.2 but could not
succeeded in getting more information. But from the
neibhours, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant no.2
earlier also tried to grab the property and resulted thereto,
litigation begun between the defendants.
m. That on 18.09.2011, the Defendant No.2 again entered in to

the suit property without the permission and consent of the
plaintiffs and asked them to vacate the suit property and on
refusal from the plaintiffs, the Defendant No.2 got enraged
and tried to damage the furniture and other utensils etc. lying
in the suit property. The Defendant No.2 while leaving the suit
property threatened the Plaintiffs that if the suit property is
not vacated by 30th September 2011, the plaintiffs would be
eliminated.
6. That the Defendants are every now and then creating the
hindrance in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs by
threatening them with dire consequences, whereas the
Defendants have no right to interfere in the peaceful living of
the plaintiffs.
7. That the plaintiffs apprehends that the Defendants would evict

them forcibly from the Suit Property as they have got high
links in the society as well as with the local police, whereas
the Defendants have got no right to evict the Plaintiffs from
the Suit Property forcibly without following the due process of
law.
8. That the action of the Defendants are illegal, unlawful,

uncalled for, arbitrary, unwarranted, without any jurisdiction
and against the principle of natural justice. The plaintiffs are
living under the constant threats given by the Defendants
especially Defendant No.2 and if any un justice or damage is
caused to the plaintiffs or to the suit property, the Defendants
shall be held responsible for the same.
9. That the Plaintiffs have no other efficacious remedy available

except to approach this Hon’ble Court to protect their valuable
and statutory rights and to restrain the Defendants from
dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the Suit Property without due
process of law and also from creating any hindrance in the
peaceful possession of the Plaintiff.
10. Cause of action

11. That the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees on
the relief of permanent injunction is fixed at Rs. 130/- and the
requisite court fee has been affixed/paid along with the suit.
within the territorial jurisdiction and parties to the suit are
also residing and working for gain within the jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER:


in/of Property bearing No. 149/1 (adjacent to Property
herewith.

Property.

may also be passed.
Place: New Delhi
Dated: ___.09.2011
PLAINTIFFS
Through
Counse
CS. No……… of 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
ADDRESS FORM OF THE PLAINTIFS

1. Mobin
S/o Late Shri Aflatoon
R/o 149/1, Hauz Rani,
New Delhi 110017
2. Mohd. Hussain
S/o Shri Baker Hussain
New Delhi 110017 ….. Plaintiffs
Filed by:
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 29.09.2011
Plaintiffs
Through
Himanshu Singhal
Advocate
7. That the Plaintiff No.2 is about 72 years old and bedridden due
to paralytic stroke. He is residing on the First Floor of the same
building being Property bearing No. C-76, measuring 292
square yards, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017, along with his
family i.e. son, daughter in law and small grand children.
8. That Defendant No. 1 is the statutory body and controlling

authority to check and control the construction activity in
Delhi. They are answerable and responsible for illegal and
unauthorized construction and without the support/connivance
of its officials; it is not possible to carry out any illegal and
unauthorized construction.
9. That the Defendant No.2 is the real younger brother of the

plaintiff No. 2 and son of Defendant No. 4 and residing on the
Third Floor of the said property. The defendant no. 3 is the
youngest brother and the defendant No.4 is the mother,
respectively, of the Plaintiff No. 2. The Defendant No. 3 and 4
are only performa defendants and there is no grievance against
them, nor did the plaintiff seek any relief against them, though
the Ground Floor of the said property bearing No. C-76, Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi 110017 is owned by Defendant No. 4.
10. The brief facts which has given rise to the present suit are as
under:
a. That although the Ground Floor of Property No. C-76,

admeasuring 292 square yards, situated at Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi 110017, (hereinafter referred to as the suit
property) belongs to Defendant No. 4 and has been kept by her
for her own use and benefit, but since the Defendant No. 2 is
dominating and always prevailed upon his mother and
brothers, he is having evil eyes on the suit property. After
selling the second floor through Defendant No. 4, he is illegally
trying to convert the residential unit on the ground floor (suit
property) into commercial by carrying out massive structural
changes in most crude manner so that he could transfer/
alienate the same.
b. On 24.05.2011, the defendant No. 2 started carrying out illegal

construction in the suit property, but the plaintiffs could not
find out as to what exactly has been going on as it was so done
in closed doors. Though the defendant no. 2 also attempted to
carry out illegal construction about three weeks ago, but
subsequently stopped the same. Howsoever, next day when
the son of plaintiff No. 2 came back to his house in the
evening, his wife and father (plaintiff No. 2) revealed to him
that whole day there was a great noise and hullabaloo in the
suit property and the defendant no. 2 seemed to have been
carrying out some major demolition and construction work. In
the mean time, the husband of plaintiff no. 1 came down and
also complained that demolition has been carried out in the
suit property by the defendant no. 2. He also told that the
demolition has been carried out in closed doors and since
defendant No. 2 and few other persons were present whole
day, he was not allowed to go inside to see as to what exactly
has been going on there. However, since there was lot of noise,
vibration and trembling in the suit property and doors were
closed, it became apparent that some major work has been
going on in the suit property. Therefore, the son of the plaintiff
No. 2 immediately went to the defendant no. 2 on the third
floor to inquire as to what is being done by him in the suit

property. But since the defendant no. 2 was found in other
mood, he told the plaintiff’s son to talk in the morning and in
order to avoid direct confrontation with Defendant No. 2 came
back, but Police was informed about the same.
c. Next day (on 26.5.2011) the plaintiff’s son once again met with
Defendant No. 2 and inquired from him as to what has been
going on and what has been broken/demolished and
reconstructed by him in the suit property and what is his
plan. The husband of plaintiff No. 1 also
accompanied him. On this, Defendant No. 2 revealed to him
that he is interested in letting out the suit property and since
it is very old constructed, he is renovating the same. On being
specifically asked as to why there has been lot of noise and
vibration in the suit property and he appeared to have carried
out lot of demolition, he (D-2) replied that he has removed the
old wood work (doors & Almirahs etc.) only and while believing
the version of defendant no. 2 to be true and correct, they both
came back.
d. On 26.05.2011, though the defendant no. 2 continued the

work, but there was not much noise and vibration. Since the
defendant No. 2 has also represented that nothing major is
going on, the plaintiffs did not anticipate anything amiss. It
was only around 10.30 PM, when the plaintiffs (husband of P-
1 and son of P-2) noticed uproar and noise of truck and
conversation of Laborers, they came down to see. They got
astonished to see a loaded truck of debris/ malba, though
there was no construction activity was going on at that point
of time and Defendant No. 2 also denied having carried out
any demolition. Since it was already 11.30 in the night, calling
the Police or even talking to Defendant No. 2 at that time was
not advisable and wise.
e. Next morning, (on 27.5.2011) the plaintiffs observed lot of

cracks in the walls. There were also visible cracks in the
dividing as well as load bearing walls. In the mean time, (on

27.5.2011) the construction work resumed and again there
had been lot of noise and shuddering. The husband of plaintiff
no. 1 and son of plaintiff no. 2 went to meet Defendant No. 2
and revealed to him about the visible cracks and made him
aware about imminent threat and danger to the persons and
property. They requested him to immediately stop the illegal
and unauthorized activity and at the same time also scolded
him for doing illegal work and for not disclosing the true facts.
The defendant was further requested to come along and see
the damage, but he did not even show courtesy to come and
see the same. When the son of plaintiff no. 2 tried to enter
upon the suit property to see as to what has actually been
done or going on, the defendant no. 2 forcibly stopped him and
asked him not to enter there. Since it was apparent that
defendant has been carrying out major structural changes and
which is why he has not been allowing them to enter and see,
there was no other recourse except to call the police and
inform the defendant no. 1.
f. Subsequently, the plaintiff no. 2 informed the Police and also

informed the defendant no. 1 about the illegal and
unauthorized construction as well as threat and danger pose
to the building. It is really unfortunate that although police
came to the site on 27.5.2011, but none from the defendant
no. 1 came to inspect the property. What to talk of stopping
illegal and unauthorized construction, the Defendant No. 1 did
not even send any officer to the suit property. Whatever has
been heard about the MCD (D-1) that anything could be done
with their active connivance/support, seemed to be true and
correct. Howsoever, upon arrival of the police officers, the
plaintiff’s son revealed to them all the facts and after showing
them cracks and other visible defects all over, took them
inside to show the illegal unauthorized. Since, plaintiff (son)
was never allowed before, rather he was literally stopped from
entering into the suit property and he thus entered there first
time with the aid of police, he was shocked to see the massive
illegal demolition and unauthorized construction in the suit

property.
By that time, the defendant No. 2 had already demolished and

taken apart the few Girders, main beams supporting the super
structure and also removed few load bearing Walls dividing
rooms in order to club the rooms and make hall. The beams
and slabs filled with reinforced concrete were found
broken/demolished. The Kitchen was found totally removed.
At two places, newly replaced girder duly fitted with Jacks was
also found. Jacks were found fitted in the roof at many places.
Besides that, lot of demolition was found having been carried
out illegally. The defendant has done all that in casual manner
which has not only put the property but lives of the occupants
in danger. There is imminent threat to the lives and property.
The plaintiff’s son immediately clicked the photographs which
are also filed herewith. The photographs are self sufficient and
self explanatory and clearly goes on to show that defendant
No. 2 is carrying out illegal and unauthorized demolition and
new construction in the suit property in gross contravention of
sanctioned plan and building bye laws and National Building
Code, without first obtaining the sanction and without
ensuring the safety of the structure and habitants. The
building is old constructed and massive structural changes
could lead to major disaster. On being asked, the defendant
No. 2 has categorically revealed to the police and plaintiffs that
he is converting the residential dwelling unit into a commercial
hall and what may come, he would complete the same.
It is submitted that the plaintiffs are living with their families

in the same building and the defendant has made their lives
miserable. The defendant cannot be allowed to carry out
massive structural changes by demolishing the load bearing
pillars, beams and walls and raising new construction in the
suit property in an illegal and unauthorized manner and
without obtaining the sanction. Otherwise also, the defendant
no. 2 cannot be allowed to convert the residential unit into a
commercial one by carrying out illegal and unauthorized
structural changes in a most dangerous and callous manner.
g. The defendant No. 1 is liable and responsible for the aforesaid

massive illegal and unauthorized construction. They ought to
have stopped the defendant No. 2 and were required to take
immediate action in this regard. It is stated that, on the
intervention of the Police, the defendant No. 2 stopped the
work in order to convince the plaintiffs and police for eye
wash. The defendant was asked to stop the work and to
ensure safety of the building and inhabitants. In front of the
Police Officer, the defendant No. 2 not only agreed and
undertook that he will stop the illegal activity immediately but
also assured to restore the suit property in its original
condition and to put/re-erect walls, pillars and beams etc..
However, the defendant no. 2 did not carry out any demolition
or construction till 3rd June 2011 and while the plaintiffs were
waiting for the defendant to restore the suit property in its
original condition, all of a sudden, on 4 th June, the defendant
No. 2 again resumed the work and still continuing with the
same. He is now breaking the shed/conopy in the court yard
and has also started breaking the flooring inside and outside
the suit property. It is really surprising that none from the
defendant no. 1 has visited the property till date, which clearly
shows that defendant No. 2 is carrying out the illegal and
unauthorized construction with active support of Defendant
No. 1. It appears that stopping the work for four-five days was
a sordid drama and merely an eye wash, rather to purchase
the erring officials of defendant No. 1. It is really surprising
that defendant no. 2 was earlier doing illegal work ostensibly
in closed doors but the complaints to Police and Defendant No.
1 have led to and rather made the defendant No. 2 more
confident and he is now working openly by opening doors. The
non-cooperation of Defendant No. 1 clearly shows that the
defendant No. 2 has been carrying out illegal and
unauthorized demolition and construction only in active
connivance of defendant no. 1.
6. That the defendant No. 2 cannot carry out such massive

structural changes by endangering the lives of the occupants
of the building as well as building. The structure of the

building could fall/come down. There are so many instances
in the past also and carrying out such structural changes
have resulted into disasters. Otherwise the building is purely
residential and the suit property (ground floor) of the
property/building is also purely residential as per the
sanctioned plan. Though the sanctioned plan is in the custody
of defendant no. 2, but it is also available with Defendant No.
1. Therefore, the defendant No. 2 cannot convert a residential
dwelling unit into a commercial hub by endangering the lives
and building. He is not allowed to carry out structural
changes and that too in such a callous and crude manner by
putting the lives as well building on risk. By removing the
beams, slabs and load bearing walls, there is likelihood of
entire building coming down. The photographs are self
explanatory and clearly go on to show that defendant No. 2
has put the hydraulic Jacks by apprehending such mishap.
But in fact these are of no use nor could the same avert such
mishaps. It is really surprising that despite complaint, the
defendant No. 1 has not taken any action so far. In case of any
tragedy, they would be equally liable and responsible.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant No. 2 cannot

carry out any construction or deviation of the sanctioned plan.
Carrying out such major changes and deviations are illegal
and gross contravention of the sanctioned plan and building
bye-laws. Therefore the defendant No. 1 cannot act as a mute
spectator. Otherwise also, since the property is a leasehold
property, neither any unauthorized construction is allowed by
the L&DO, nor they could permit commercial activity. Not only
that, the entire building is a residential and converting the
suit property into commercial would not only pose threat and
danger to the lives put make the lives of the habitants/
residents miserable and in jeopardy.
8. That the plaintiffs are also apprehending that after demolishing

the internal structure of the suit property, the defendant
would try to cover the open court yard and verandahs, which
are meant and intended for common use of the occupants of

the building. The plaintiffs also park its car/s inside the
building. Therefore the plaintiffs cannot be deprived of their
valuable rights to live and enjoy the property.
9. That since the defendant No. 1 has not taken any action
against the illegal and unauthorized construction in the suit
property, despite complaint, nor the defendant No. 2 has
acceded to the requests of the plaintiffs and stopped the illegal
acts, rather still continuing with his nefarious design, the
plaintiffs have been left with no other recourse except to
approach this Hon. Court. Hence this Suit.
If the defendants No. 1 is not directed to take immediate
action and stop the illegal and unauthorized construction in
the suit property and also defendant no. 2 is not restrained
from carrying out any illegal construction and to restore the
same in its original condition, the plaintiffs will suffer
irreparable loss and injury and even loss of life.
10. That the cause of action first arose when the defendant No. 2
with or without consent of Defendant No. 3 and 4 started
illegal and unauthorized construction about three weeks ago,
but stopped thereafter. The cause of action arose on
24.05.2011, when the defendant No. 2 started carrying out
massive illegal and unauthorized structural changes and
construction in the suit property. The cause of action further
arose on 26.5.2011, when the defendant No. 2 continued with
the illegal and unauthorized construction, but misrepresented
the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and son of plaintiff No. 2. It
arose further on 26.05.2011 at 10.30 PM, when the plaintiffs
(husband of P-1 and son of P-2) found a loaded truck of
debris/ malba going out of the suit property and it became
apparent that defendant has not revealed the truth about the
extent of damage. The cause of action further arose when
visible cracks and damage was found/observed in the
building. The cause of action further arose on 27.5.2011,
when complaints to local Police and Defendant No. 1 were
made by the plaintiff. The cause of action arose when police

officers visited the suit property and helped plaintiffs entering
the suit property. The cause of action further arose when the
plaintiffs were astonished to see the actual site and first time
they came to know about the extent of damage, illegal and
unauthorized construction in the suit property. The cause of
action further arose, when after stopping the work for few
days, the illegal and unauthorized work resumed on
04.05.2011 and still continued with the same. The cause of
action qua the defendant No. 2 is still continuing as instead of
stopping and restoring the suit property in its original
condition, is still continuing with illegal activity. The cause of
action qua the defendant no. 1 arose on 27.05.2011, when
complaint was made to them but they failed to take any
action. The cause of action qua Defendant No. 1 is subsisting
as defendant No. 2 is still carrying out the illegal and
unauthorized structural changes and construction but
defendant no. 1 has not taken action till date.
11. That the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and
court fees for the relief of mandatory injunction and
permanent injunction is valued at Rs.130/= and Rs.130/=
respectively, on which a total court fees of of Rs.26/= is
affixed.
12. That since the suit property is situated at New Delhi (South
Delhi), within the jurisdiction of this Hon. Court and the
plaintiffs and defendants are residing at New Delhi, while the
defendant No. 1 is a statutory body of Delhi, this Hon. Court
has got jurisdiction to try this Suit.
PRAYER:

1. a Decree of Mandatory Injunction;
a) directing the defendant No. 2 not to remove anything

and carry out any structural as well as illegal and
unauthorized changes in the suit property, i.e entire Ground
Floor of Property No. C-76, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, in
contravention of the original sanctioned plan and building
bye-laws.
b) directing the defendant No. 2 to remove the illegal and
unauthorized construction from the suit property i.e entire
Ground Floor of Property No. C-76, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
c) directing the defendant No. 2 to restore the suit property

i.e entire Ground Floor of Property No. C-76, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi, in its original condition by erecting/ fixing walls,
pillars and beams etc. in original condition in accordance to
the original sanctioned plan and not to put the suit property
in any other use.
d) directing the defendant No. 2 to remove all hindrance

and obstructions and always provide free access from the
court yard and verandah and not to obstruct for parking cars.
e) directing the defendant no. 1 1) to take action against

defendant No. 2 and suit property (as described above) in
accordance to law, 2) stop illegal and unauthorized structural
changes and construction, 3) to restore the suit property in
original condition, 4) not to permit commercial activity and 5)
ensure the implementation of above prayers as made in Para 1
a) b) c) and d) above.
2. for a Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the

defendant No. 2 from changing the original condition of the
suit property (as described above) and its use and also from
converting the same into commercial.
3. Costs of the Suit may be awarded to the plaintiffs
4. Any other order or orders as this Hon. Court may deem

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may
also be passed.
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 06.06.2011
PLAINTIFFS
Through
R.K. Sachdeva &
Gaurav Sachdeva
Advocates
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this 6th day of June 2011

that the contents of Para 1 to ___ of the plaint are true and
correct to my knowledge and that of Para ___ to ___ are believed
PLAINTI
FFS
To
The S.H.O
P.S Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017.
Sub. Complaint against S. Gurbachan Singh Banga, S/o Late S. Ujagar

Singh, R/o C-76, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, regarding illegal and
unauthorized construction on the ground floor of Property No. C-
76, Malviya Nagar, N.D, despite stay/restraining order of the Court
Sir,
I beg to state as under:
1. That I am living on the First Floor of above Property No. C-76,

Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and my brother S. Gurbachan Singh is
also living in the same property. I am paralytic and bed ridden. My
brother Sh. Gurbachan Singh is carrying out massive and rampant
construction on the ground floor in an illegal and unauthorized
manner, without obtaining any permission and sanction from the
MCD. He (Sh. Gurbachan Singh) has already demolished and taken
apart few Girders, main beams supporting the super structure and
also removed some load bearing Walls as well as walls dividing the
rooms in order to club the rooms and make hall thereof. Some
beams and slabs have also been removed and dismantled and the
Kitchen has also been removed. He has done all this in a very casual
and dangerous manner which has not only put the property but
lives of the occupants in danger. There is imminent threat to the
lives and property. It is pertinent to mention that the building is old
constructed and massive structural changes could lead to major
disaster. Sh. Gurbachan Singh is in process of converting the purely
residential premises (on ground floor) into a full-fledged commercial
shops/halls by breaking open the front wall and it also appear that
he would also remove the outer walls for covering the front court
yard.
2. That lot of cracks have already developed in the walls on the first
floor and second floor and if illegal and unauthorized construction is
not stopped immediately, it could lead to fall of structure. We have
already filed a complaint to you on 27.05.2011. Though Sh.

Gurbachan Singh stopped the work upon your arrival and
intervention but resumed the work thereafter. He started damaging
the entire premises with great speed. Apprehending worst, we (my
self and owner of the second floor Smt. Krishna Devi) filed a Case
against Sh. Gurbachan Singh and MCD for permanent injunction
and mandatory injunction in the Court.
3. That the aforesaid case being Suit (CS) No. 89 of 2011, titled Smt.
Krishna Devi & another vs. MCD and others was listed today, 10 th
June 2011 before the Court of Shri Raj Kumar Tripathi, ASCJ,
Saket, New Delhi, who has been passed a restraining order and
directed that no further structural changes be made in the suit
property till further orders without getting any approval/sanction
from the municipal authority. The Hon. Court has further directed
to maintain the status quo in the suit property. The copy of the
aforesaid Order dated 10.06.2011 is enclosed herewith for your kind
perusal.
4. It is stated that in spite of the above mentioned order, Sh.

Gurbachan Singh is still carrying out the illegal and unauthorized
structural changes and construction in gross violation of the above
said Order. When my son went to request them to stop the work,
they threatened him with dire consequences. A complaint in this
regard was made today around 5.20 PM to 100 number. Besides
control room, a Police Officer Mr. Amit Bhardwaj from the police
station arrived. When Police came to the property, Mr. Gurbachan
Singh, his friend and associate Mr. Raman Sachdeva along with the
labour were present and found carrying out/continuing with
demolition and construction despite specific order. On being asked,
we explained the case to the Police Officer and showed the court
order. Mr. Raman Sachdeva told Mr. Amit Bhardwaj (SI) to ask for
certified copy and also misled him regarding the order “status quo”.
Mr. Bhardwaj (S.I) was initially little confused and used/repeated
the same language, as has been used by Mr. Raman Sachdeva.
However, on being explained, he understood and after discussing
3
the order with seniors or some colleague, clearly asked Mr.

Gurbachan Singh to comply the court order and also asked him to
stop the work.
5. That although Mr. Gurbachan Singh promised to stop the

work, but as far as Mr. Raman Sachdeva is concerned, he not only
threatened but challenged in front of the Police Officers that they
would see to it and what may come, they would continue and
complete the same. It is therefore apprehended that they would
restart the work any moment, which could cause major loss to the
lives and property.
It is therefore requested, to stop the illegal and unauthorized

work/construction and initiate the necessary action.
New Delhi
Dated: 10.06.2011 APPLICANT
Encl. Court Order

(Manmohan Singh Banga)
C-76, F.F, Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017.
(Ph. 9971140569)
Dated: 11/06/2011
Mr. Balley
S/o Mr. C.V. Balodia
R/o D-395, Defence Colony
New Delhi.
Sub. Ground Floor premises of Property No. C-76, Malviya Nagar, N.D
Sir,

manner, without obtaining any permission and sanction from the
MCD. He (Sh. Gurbachan Singh) has already demolished and taken
apart few Girders, main beams supporting the super structure and
also removed some load bearing Walls as well as walls dividing the
rooms in order to club the rooms and make hall thereof. Some
yard.
Contd.2/p
not stopped immediately, it could lead to fall of structure and
disaster. We have already filed a complaint to the Police and MCD
on 27.05.2011. Since Sh. Gurbachan Singh after stopping the work
for some time again resumed the work and started damaging the
entire premises with great speed. Apprehending worst, we (my self
and owner of the second floor Smt. Krishna Devi) filed a Case
against Sh. Gurbachan Singh and MCD for permanent injunction
and mandatory injunction in the Court.
Krishna Devi & Another Vs. MCD and others was listed on 10 th
Saket, New Delhi, who has been pleased to pass a restraining order
and directed that no further structural changes be made in the suit
property till further orders without getting any approval/sanction
from the municipal authority. The Hon. Court has further directed
to maintain the status quo in the suit property. The copy of the
aforesaid Order dated 10.06.2011 is enclosed herewith for your kind
perusal.
4. That on 10.06.2011, while the proceeding was going on before the

Hon. Court, it has been revealed by the defendant in the case that
the suit premises has been let out (rented out) to your good self. In
view of the said revelation, it is necessary to make you aware of all
the facts and circumstances as well as Order passed by the Hon.
Court. Since the illegal and unauthorized work has not been stopped
despite the aforesaid order, on 10.06.2011 today at about 5.20 PM
and again on 11.06.2011, a complaint was made to the Police, who
not only intervened and stopped the work, but also advised us to
paste/fix the copy of the order (of the Court) on the wall and
accordingly the copy was pasted. Not only that, Shri Gurbachan
Singh was also found on the site/suit premises.
Contd.3/p
5. That it is really surprising that although illegal and unauthorized

demolition and construction has been going on in the above
premises but we never found or seen any employee or representative
of yours or your company. Not only that, even on 10.6.2011 and
today on 11.06.2011, while work was going on despite court order,
none of your worker or representative was present in the suit
premises, when police arrived, found defendant Sh. Gurbachan
Singh and Mr. Raman Sachdeva along with labour and intervened. It
is therefore requested, kindly let us know the status as to whether
you have already executed the Lease Deed or still in process of
finalizing the lease in respect of the aforesaid premises ? Kindly also
let us know as to whether you have been carrying out the massive
structural changes and agreed to take on lease the said premises on
as is where is basis i.e in residential condition and have to convert
the residential premises in commercial by carrying out massive
structural changes of your own or it is the defendant who has been
carrying out all the illegal and unauthorized construction and
changes and have to provide you the premises after structural
changes and modification? These queries and questions are required
to be answered by you so that the same could be brought on record
before the Hon. Court for fair disposal of the matter.
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is, therefore

requested to:
a. stop the illegal and unauthorized work/construction in the suit
premises i.e. Ground Floor of Property No. C-76, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi 110017, carrying out by you or at your instance in view
of the order dated 10.06.2011 passed by the ld. Judge and
b. to answer the above said queries so that the same could be
brought on record before the Hon. Court for fair disposal of the
matter.
New Delhi (Manmohan Singh Banga)

Place: 11.06.2011 C-76, F.F, Malviya Nagar
New Delhi 110017
To
The Deputy Commissioner, South,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Green Park, New Delhi.
Sub. Complaint against S. Gurbachan Singh Banga, S/o Late S. Ujagar

Singh, R/o C-76, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, regarding illegal and
unauthorized construction on the ground floor of Property No. C-
76, Malviya Nagar, N.D, despite stay/restraining order of the Court
Sir,

manner, without obtaining any permission and sanction from your
good self. He (Sh. Gurbachan Singh) has already demolished and
taken apart few Girders, main beams supporting the super structure
and also removed some load bearing Walls as well as walls dividing
the rooms in order to club the rooms and make hall thereof. Some
yard.
not stopped immediately, it could lead to fall of structure. We have
already filed a complaint to you on 27.05.2011. Though Sh.

Gurbachan Singh stopped the work upon arrival of local police and
their intervention but later on resumed the work. He started
damaging the entire premises with great speed. Since your Office
could not take timely action, apprehending worst, we (my self and
owner of the second floor Smt. Krishna Devi) filed a Case against Sh.
Gurbachan Singh and MCD for permanent injunction and
mandatory injunction in the Court.
Krishna Devi & another vs. MCD and others was listed on 10 th
Saket, New Delhi, who has been pleased to pass a restraining order
and directed the said defendant that no further structural changes
be made in the suit property till further orders without getting any
approval/sanction from the municipal authority. The Hon. Court
has further directed to maintain the status quo in the suit property.
The copy of the aforesaid Order dated 10.06.2011 is enclosed
herewith for your kind perusal. It is pertinent to mention here that
the Hon. Court has also sought status report from Defendant No. 1,
MCD on the next date of hearing.
4. It is really surprising that in spite of the above mentioned order, Sh.

Gurbachan Singh is still carrying out the illegal and unauthorized
structural changes and construction in gross violation of the above
said Order. When my son went to request them to stop the work,
they threatened him with dire consequences. A complaint in this
regard was made on 10.6.2011 and 11.6.2011 to the Police.
5. That Mr. Gurbachan Singh is still carrying out the work and at the
same time, he is also erecting 4” walls in place of 9” (load bearing)
walls, due to reason best known to him and may be to avoid action
from your Office. Mr. Gurbachan Singh had also constructed the
third floor illegally and unauthorisedly few years ago.

work/construction and initiate the necessary action at your earliest.
Dated: 13/06/2011 APPLICANT

Encl. Court Order

(Manmohan Singh Banga)
C-76, F.F, Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017.
(Ph. 9971140569)
Date: 09/09/2011
To
The S.H.O (Station House Officer),

P.S Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017.
Sub. Complaint against Mrs. Surinder Kaur, w/o Sh. Harjot Singh, R/o H-
17/10, (G.F) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017, regarding illegal and
unauthorized construction on the Terrace/Roof of the Second Floor
of Property No. H-17/10, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
Sir,
1. That I am the lawful and sole owner of the entire Second Floor of the
above Property bearing No. H-17/10, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and
the aforesaid Mrs. Surinder Kaur is living in the same property on
the ground floor. The Terrace/Roof over and above the second floor
of the said property also belongs to Mrs. Surinder Kaur. Since the
building already comprises of four dwelling units on the lower
ground floor, ground floor, first floor and second floor, the height of
the building has already exceeded the maximum height. The
building is also not capable or in a position to bear load of additional
floor.
2. That I came to India on 8 th August 2011 from Canada. I was

astonished to see illegal and unauthorized construction on the
terrace (of second floor) in the form of one room set, which has also
been given to students on rent. The said illegal construction has
been carried out by them in my absence, while I was away at
Canada. When I asked them to show the permission/sanction from
the MCD, they refused to show anything, which clearly goes on to
prove that the construction is totally unauthorized.
3. That Due to said unauthorized construction, there was a seepage

and leakage from the roof to my bath room and two bed rooms from
the bath room constructed on the terrace. I complained to Mrs.

Surinder kaur and Mr. Harjot Singh about the same but to no avail,
rather they clearly refused to get the same fixed on my floor due to
some plumbing problem in the bathroom constructed on the terrace,
which is inside one room constructed on the terrace. Finally, I got
the leakage and seepage and other repair work done on my floor at
my own which costed me about Rs.10,000/=.
4. That In spite of my repeated requests, the said Mrs. Surinder Kaur

and Sh. Harjot Singh did not compensate or reimburse me for the
loss and damage suffered by me and above amount being spent by
me which was attributable to them due to the poor plumbing/
construction done on the terrace which they have also let it out to
two college going students.. In fact, the construction on the terrace
amounts to fifth floor which is illegal as up to second floor the height
of 15 meters has already been covered. More over, the foundations of
the building are very weak and not capable of bearing load of
additional floor.
5. That yesterday, that is on 8 th of September, Mrs. Surinder Kaur and

Sh. Harjot Singh went further ahead and resume the illegal and
unauthorized construction. They employed about 10 labourers and
started construction of rooms on the terrace, thereby converting the
said terrace into a full-fledged dwelling unit on the third floor. This
illegal act of the said Mrs. Harjot Kaur has further caused lot of
cracks in my flat and likely to cause more loss and damage to my
flat. Otherwise also, the building has already been constructed upto
15 mts height covering upto second floor and if more load is put on
it, my flat may get more cracks and it will be unfit for living and also
the load of new construction on the terrace, which is illegal might
destroy the whole building and it might collapse causing injuries to
the people living in this plot H 17/10 malviya nagar. On top of it,
when I requested them to stop the illegal construction, they started
fighting with me and clearly refused to stop the same. Not only that,
they threatened me with dire consequences. Mr. Harjot Singh clearly
told me that I may complain to your good self and nothing will be
done in this regard. Thereafter, I visited your Office, but since it was
found closed, I contacted the Junior Engineer of the area Mr.
Amarjit Singh Rathore and apprised him of the illegal and
unauthorized construction. Though he assured me of a prompt
action, but nothing has been done in this regard as yet.
6. It is pertinent to mention that the building, especially the second
floor which belongs to me cant stand the load of another illegal
construction on the terrace and if it is not stopped, the building
might collapse and cause body and money damage to its
inhabitants. I would be the biggest sufferer if this illegal
construction is not stopped, as I live just below the terrace on the
second floor.

work/construction on the Terrace of Property No. H-17/10, Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi and initiate the necessary action at your earliest.
Thanking You
Your’s Faithfully
PRAMOD VOHRA
H-17/10, Second Floor
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
Mob. 9999616354
Dated: 09/09/2011 APPLICANT
Complaint to MCD
1 property address – H 17/ 10 Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017

2 owner of complete second floor – pramod vohra s/o late B. L. Vohra
3 Owner of ground floor and also in possession of terrqce ( above second
floor ) Surinder Kaur, w/o Harjot Singh ( s/o Surinder Singh)
4 Sale deed done between Surinder Kaur for sale of complete second floor
in favour of pramod vohra . Harjot singh gave general power of attorney to
his wife surinder kaur.
5 Sale deed done dated 22/8/2008
6 Above mentioned sale deed mentions that there are going to be four
storeys on this land
7 Already four floors have been constructed on this land measuring 100 sq
yds. that is, lower ground floor; ground floor; first floor; second floor.
8 After I got possession of my second floor in august 2008, harjot
singh/surinder kaur got a room with attached bathroom constructed
without my permission on the terrace. Due to bad construction, there was
a leakage from the roof to my bath room and two bed rooms from the bath
room constructed on the terrace. I complained to surinder kaur/ harjot
singh about it but they refused to get the leakage fixed on my floor due to
some plumbing problem in the bathroom constructed on the terrace, which
is inside one room constructed on the terrace..Finally, I got the leakage
and other repair work done on my floor in 2010 at my which costed me
8500/ rupees.
9 Inspite of my repeated requests, the owner of the terrace, surinder
kaur/harjot singh did not compensate me for the above amount which was
due to the poor plumbing/ construction done on the terrace which they
have let it out to two college going students.. In fact, the construction on
the terrace amounts to fifth floor which is illegal as upto second floor the
height of 15 meters has already been covered.
10 About one month back again, water started leaking in my bathroom from
the bathroom constructed on the terrace, which is fifth floor. It has not only
ruined my bathroom but the water leakage from the terrace’s bathroom
has spread to my both bed rooms and ruined them as well and it needs
immediate repair which will cost about rupees fifteen thousand.. I
requested both surinder kaur and harjot singh her husband to get the
repair to my flat done at their cost which they flatly refused.
11 Today, that is on 8th of September, surinder kaur and harjot sing employed
about 10 labourers and started construction of another room on the
terrace without my verbal or written consent. The building has already
been constructed upto 15 mts height covering upto second floor and if
more load is put on it, my flat may get cracks and it will be unfit for living
and also the load of new construction on the terrace, which is illegal might
destroy the whole building and it might collapse causing injuries to the
people living in this plot H 17/10 malviya nagar, .both surinder kaur and
harjot sing her husband did not take any permission from me to do this
illegal construction and when I told them to stop it they started fighting with
me.
12 The building, especially the second floor which belongs to me cant stand
the load of another illegal construction on the terrace and if it is not
stopped, the building might collapse and cause body and money damage
to its inhabitants. I am the biggest sufferer if this illegal constgruction as I
live just below the terrace on the second floor.
13 I repeat, surinder kaur did not take any verbal or written permission from
me to start this illegal constgruction on the terrace which is the fufth floor.
Date: 09/09/2011
To
The Deputy Commissioner, South,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Green Park, New Delhi.
Sub. Complaint against Mrs. Surinder Kaur, w/o Sh. Harjot Singh, R/o H-
17/10, (G.F) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017, regarding illegal and
unauthorized construction on the Terrace/Roof of the Second Floor
of Property No. H-17/10, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
Sir,
1. That I am the lawful and sole owner of the entire Second Floor of the
above Property bearing No. H-17/10, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and
the aforesaid Mrs. Surinder Kaur is living in the same property on
the ground floor. The Terrace/Roof over and above the second floor
of the said property also belongs to Mrs. Surinder Kaur. Since the
building already comprises of four dwelling units on the lower
ground floor, ground floor, first floor and second floor, the height of
the building has already exceeded the maximum height. The
building is also not capable or in a position to bear load of additional
floor.
2. That I came to India on 8 th August 2011 from Canada. I was to

astonished to see illegal and unauthorized construction on the
terrace (of second floor) in the form of one room set, which has also
been given to students on rent. The said illegal construction has
been carried out by them in my absence, while I was away at
Canada. When I asked them to show the permission/sanction from
the MCD, they refused to show anything, which clearly goes on to
prove that the construction is totally unauthorized.
3. That Due to said unauthorized construction, there was a seepage

and leakage from the roof to my bath room and two bed rooms from
the bath room constructed on the terrace. I complained to Mrs.

Surinder kaur and Mr. Harjot Singh about the same but to no avail,
rather they clearly refused to get the same fixed on my floor due to
some plumbing problem in the bathroom constructed on the terrace,
which is inside one room constructed on the terrace. Finally, I got
the leakage and seepage and other repair work done on my floor at
my own which costed me about Rs.10,000/=.
4. That In spite of my repeated requests, the said Mrs. Surinder Kaur

and Sh. Harjot Singh did not compensate or reimburse me for the
loss and damage suffered by me and above amount being spent by
me which was attributable to them due to the poor plumbing/
construction done on the terrace which they have also let it out to
two college going students.. In fact, the construction on the terrace
amounts to fifth floor which is illegal as up to second floor the height
of 15 meters has already been covered. More over, the foundations of
the building are very weak and not capable of bearing load of
additional floor.
5. That yesterday, that is on 8 th of September, Mrs. Surinder Kaur and

Sh. Harjot Singh went further ahead and resume the illegal and
unauthorized construction. They employed about 10 labourers and
started construction of rooms on the terrace, thereby converting the
said terrace into a full-fledged dwelling unit on the third floor. This
illegal act of the said Mrs. Harjot Kaur has further caused lot of
cracks in my flat and likely to cause more loss and damage to my
flat. Otherwise also, the building has already been constructed upto
15 mts height covering upto second floor and if more load is put on
it, my flat may get more cracks and it will be unfit for living and also
the load of new construction on the terrace, which is illegal might
destroy the whole building and it might collapse causing injuries to
the people living in this plot H 17/10 malviya nagar. On top of it,
when I requested them to stop the illegal construction, they started
fighting with me and clearly refused to stop the same. Not only that,
they threatened me with dire consequences. Mr. Harjot Singh clearly
told me that I may complain to your good self and nothing will be
done in this regard. Thereafter, I visited your Office, but since it was
found closed, I contacted the Junior Engineer of the area Mr.
Amarjit Singh Rathore and apprised him of the illegal and
unauthorized construction. Though he assured me of a prompt
action, but nothing has been done in this regard as yet.
6. It is pertinent to mention that the building, especially the second

floor which belongs to me cant stand the load of another illegal
construction on the terrace and if it is not stopped, the building
might collapse and cause body and money damage to its
inhabitants. I would be the biggest sufferer if this illegal
construction is not stopped, as I live just below the terrace on the
second floor.

work/construction on the Terrace of Property No. H-17/10, Malviya
Nagar, New Delhi and initiate the necessary action at your earliest.
Thanking You
Your’s Faithfully
PRAMOD VOHRA
H-17/10, Second Floor
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
Mob. 9999616354
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP YADAV, SCJ, SAKET, NEW DELHI
CS. NO………. OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT. KRISHNA DEVI Vs. MCD & Others

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 READ WITH ORDER 8 RULE 3 &
ORDER 6 RULE 1 C.P.C ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF S. M.S. BANGA
________________________________________________________________________
1. That the above noted suit is pending adjudication in this Hon.Court

and fixed for today, 13.09.2011.
2. That Defendant No. 2 has been carrying out massive illegal and
unauthorized construction by changing the entire residential structure of
the suit property in order to convert/put the residential dwelling unit on
the Ground Floor of Property No. C-76, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi for
commercial purpose. He himself admitted in the Court that, the suit
premises has already been given to one Mr. Balley son of Mr. C.V.
Balodia, R/o D-395, Defence Colony, New Delhi, which is self sufficient
and self explanatory that defendant had already finalized the tenancy
with the so called tenant who would certainly use the premises for
commercial purpose. But since the suit property could not be used for
commercial use without first changing the structure, that is to say, by
removing internal load bearing/partition walls, kitchen and bathrooms
etc., the defendant undertook the structural changes and unauthorized
construction. The defendant also undertook to produce the lease deed in
the Court, so that plaintiff could implead them in the array of
defendants, but the defendant has intentionally not brought the same on
record. The reason for not filing the purported Lease Deed is apparent,
either the premises has not been given on rent as yet but only in order to
mislead, the defendant has stated so, or the defendant wants to conceal
the terms of the lease and purpose mentioned therein. However, as per
the knowledge of the plaintiff, the proposed tenant wants to run the
business from the residential premises after getting the same converted
into commercial Hall. Not only that, the defendant also wants to cover
the open front verandah/court yard. In view of these facts, it is apparent
that defendant will definitely complete the left over work to make the
premises viable and capable of being used as commercial.
It is submitted that due to aforesaid reason, the defendant wants to
complete the work and induct the tenant in the suit premises as early as
possible and that is why, he is desperate and wants the Court to decide
the Stay Application in his favour. It is really surprising that this Hon.
Court while passing the interim order, had restrained the defendant from
carrying out any structural changes and if the defendant really does not
want to carry out any structural changes and unauthorized construction,
then why he is in so haste for disposal of the stay application, even
before completion of pleadings. This conduct of the defendant clearly
goes on to show the malafide on the part of the defendant and thus if
stay is not granted and defendant is not restrained from carrying out any
work in contravention of sanctioned plan and building bye-laws, he
(defendant) will succeed in his nefarious design in the garb of any such
order.
3. That in order to pretend and show bonafide, this defendant has not
only misled this Hon. Court but also won over the defendant No. 1 and
procured the status report from them as per his own convenience, as the
status report is totally vague, incomplete, baseless, unclear, hazy and
ambiguous. Not only has that, even the written statement of Defendant
No. 1 is no written statement in the eyes of law, as it contains only vague
and baseless statements, bald allegations and evasive denials besides
there being an element of ambiguity.
It is submitted that the plaintiff has stated in Para 5 (f) of the plaint that
the plaintiff observed lot of cracks in the walls. There were also visible
cracks in the dividing as well as load bearing walls. In next sub para, it is
also stated that despite several complaints, the Defendant No. 1 did not
even send any officer to the suit property. It is further mentioned therein
that the plaintiff’s son was shocked to see the massive illegal demolition
and unauthorized construction in the suit property. By that time, the
defendant No. 2 had already demolished and taken apart the few
Girders, main beams supporting the super structure and also removed
few load bearing Walls dividing rooms in order to club the rooms and
make hall. The beams and slabs filled with reinforced concrete were
found broken/demolished. The Kitchen was found totally removed. At
two places, newly replaced girder duly fitted with Jacks was also found.
Jacks were found fitted in the roof at many places. Besides that, lot of
demolition was found having been carried out illegally. The defendant
has done all that in casual manner which has not only put the property
but lives of the occupants in danger. There is imminent threat to the
lives and property. The plaintiff’s son immediately clicked the
photographs which are also filed herewith. The photographs are self
sufficient and self explanatory and clearly goes on to show that
defendant No. 2 is carrying out illegal and unauthorized demolition and
new construction in the suit property in gross contravention of
sanctioned plan and building bye laws and National Building Code,
without first obtaining the sanction and without ensuring the safety of
the structure and habitants. The building is old constructed and massive
structural changes could lead to major disaster. On being asked, the
defendant No. 2 has categorically revealed to the police and plaintiffs that
he is converting the residential dwelling unit into a commercial hall and
what may come, he would complete the same.
It is submitted in the plaint that the defendant no. 2 cannot be allowed

to convert the residential unit into a commercial one by carrying out
illegal and unauthorized structural changes in a most dangerous and
callous manner.
It is further mentioned in subsequent para that he (defendant) is now

breaking the shed/conopy in the court yard and has also started
breaking the flooring inside and outside the suit property. The non-
cooperation of Defendant No. 1 clearly shows that the defendant No. 2
has been carrying out illegal and unauthorized demolition and
construction only in active connivance of defendant no. 1.
It is also mentioned in Para 6 of the Plaint that the defendant No. 2

cannot carry out such massive structural changes by endangering the
lives of the occupants of the building as well as building. The structure of
the building could fall/come down. The defendant No. 2 cannot convert a
residential dwelling unit into a commercial hub by endangering the lives
and building. He is not allowed to carry out structural changes and that
too in such a callous and crude manner by putting the lives as well
building on risk. By removing the beams, slabs and load bearing walls,
there is likelihood of entire building coming down. The photographs are
self explanatory and clearly go on to show that defendant No. 2 has put
the hydraulic Jacks by apprehending such mishap. But in fact these are
of no use nor could the same avert such mishaps. It is really surprising
that despite complaint, the defendant No. 1 has not taken any action so
far. In case of any tragedy, they would be equally liable and responsible.
It is also mentioned in Para 7 that It is pertinent to mention here that the

defendant No. 2 cannot carry out any construction or deviation of the
sanctioned plan. Carrying out such major changes and deviations are
illegal and gross contravention of the sanctioned plan and building bye-
laws. Therefore the defendant No. 1 cannot act as a mute spectator.
Otherwise also, since the property is a leasehold property, neither any
unauthorized construction is allowed by the L&DO, nor they could
permit commercial activity. Not only that, the entire building is a
residential and converting the suit property into commercial would not
only pose threat and danger to the lives put make the lives of the
habitants/ residents miserable and in jeopardy.
It is further stated that the plaintiffs are also apprehending that after
demolishing the internal structure of the suit property, the defendant
would try to cover the open court yard and verandahs, which
are meant and intended for common use of the occupants of the
building. The plaintiffs also park its car/s inside the building. Therefore
the plaintiffs cannot be deprived of their valuable rights to live and enjoy
the property.
4. That the conduct of the Defendant No. 1 before this Hon. Court is
apparent and clearly shows the manipulation and connivance between
the defendants. Before submitting the eye wash status report, the
Defendant No. 1 has filed its vague written statement, but none of the
statements and averments of the plaint (as also mentioned above) has
been replied by them and except vague, unclear and ambiguous
statements, there is nothing in the WS. The defendant No. 1 was bound
to state the truth and status of the suit property in accordance to the
statements of the plaint. It was their statutory duty to take care of the
grievance of the plaintiff and to deal the unauthorized construction in
accordance to law. They were under an obligation to make sure that they
would not let the defendant No. 2 to continue with the illegal
construction. They were also required to state about as to whether the
defendant could convert the residential unit into full fledged commercial
hall/showroom. But nothing was revealed by the defendant no. 1 in its
WS.
It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant no. 1, despite being
fully aware of the structural changes and unauthorized construction in
the suit property did not disclose anything in the WS on the pretext that
since the suit property was found locked, they could not carry out the
inspection. It is stated that defendant is bound to state and reply each
and every content/para of the plaint. Though it is the statutory duty of
the D-1 and they ought to state the nature, extent, validity,
determination and deviation of the sanctioned plan and its remedial
measures, but otherwise also as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 3 and
Order 6 Rule 1 CPC, the defendant is bound to deal specifically with each
and every averment. Each and every statement has to be specific and
unambiguous. There should not be evasive denial.
5. That after filing the WS, the defendant has come yet again with
another vague and ambiguous status report with no head and foot. The
defendant No. 1 was to submit the report in regards with Ground Floor,
but they went further ahead voluntarily in order to side track the main
report. It is simply stated by them that during the inspection it was
found that the owner/occupier of the suit property has carried out the
unauthorized construction in the shape of deviations/excess coverage
against the sanctioned building plan at ground floor, first floor and
totally unauthorized construction (without any sanction) on the second
and third floor. The defendant No. 1 has prepared a totally vague report
with ambiguity. They have mixed two things, viz. unauthorized
construction and excess coverage. The excess coverage could be
regularized and compounded, while structural changes and
unauthorized construction is liable for action. Therefore the defendant
No. 1 ought to clarify and submit proper report about the unauthorized
construction and structural changes. Not only that, they are also under
an obligation to specify about commercial activity in the suit property.
The Defendant No. 1 are also required to submit separate status reports
of the suit property and other portions.
6. That as already stated above, the Defendant No. 1 has submitted
vague written statement and they are required to submit proper WS and
status report after determining the extent of deviations and unauthorized
construction. Therefore, the pleadings cannot be treated as completed,
which must be completed before deciding the stay application. Not only
that, Defendant No. 3 and 4 also could not be served. The plaintiff has
yet to file his replication. Therefore, the application under O 39 R 1 & 2
CPC may be kept in abeyance till the proper report is submitted by the
D-1 and pleadings are completed.
7. That even as per the vague status report of D-1, it is apparent on

its face that the extent of unauthorized construction in the suit property
is beyond permissible limits, as the D-1 has clearly stated therein that
they have initiated legal action and show cause notice has been served. It
is further stated by them that they have booked the unauthorized
construction and further action shall be taken by them in due course of
time under the relevant provisions of the ACT. It is stated that in view of
the report, the D-1 is not only under an obligation to specify the
deviations, but also to take action and thus an action taken report is
required to be submitted by them prior to disposal of the stay
application.
It is submitted that in case stay is not granted on an application under O

39 R 1 & 2 CPC, it shall have deterrent effect on D-1, who will then not
initiate any action. Not only that, the Defendant No. 2 shall have free
hand to go ahead and carry out further illegal and unauthorized
construction in the suit property.
PRAYER:
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is prayed to

this Hon. Court, that the Defendant No. 1 may be directed to file fresh
status report with complete details and disposal of the Application under
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC may kindly be kept in abeyance till then.
New Delhi
Dated: 13.09.2011 PLAINTIFF NO. 2
Through Counsel
9. That since the defendant No. 1 has not taken any action
against the illegal and unauthorized construction in the suit
property, despite complaint, nor the defendant No. 2 has
acceded to the requests of the plaintiffs and stopped the illegal
acts, rather still continuing with his nefarious design, the
plaintiffs have been left with no other recourse except to
approach this Hon. Court. Hence this Suit.
If the defendants No. 1 is not directed to take immediate

action and stop the illegal and unauthorized construction in
the suit property and also defendant no. 2 is not restrained
from carrying out any illegal construction and to restore the
same in its original condition, the plaintiffs will suffer
irreparable loss and injury and even loss of life.
10. That the cause of action first arose when the defendant No. 2
with or without consent of Defendant No. 3 and 4 started
illegal and unauthorized construction about three weeks ago,
but stopped thereafter. The cause of action arose on
24.05.2011, when the defendant No. 2 started carrying out
massive illegal and unauthorized structural changes and
construction in the suit property. The cause of action further
arose on 26.5.2011, when the defendant No. 2 continued with
the illegal and unauthorized construction, but misrepresented
the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and son of plaintiff No. 2. It
arose further on 26.05.2011 at 10.30 PM, when the plaintiffs
(husband of P-1 and son of P-2) found a loaded truck of
debris/ malba going out of the suit property and it became
apparent that defendant has not revealed the truth about the
extent of damage. The cause of action further arose when
visible cracks and damage was found/observed in the
building. The cause of action further arose on 27.5.2011,
when complaints to local Police and Defendant No. 1 were
made by the plaintiff. The cause of action arose when police

officers visited the suit property and helped plaintiffs entering
the suit property. The cause of action further arose when the
plaintiffs were astonished to see the actual site and first time
they came to know about the extent of damage, illegal and
unauthorized construction in the suit property. The cause of
action further arose, when after stopping the work for few
days, the illegal and unauthorized work resumed on
04.05.2011 and still continued with the same. The cause of
action qua the defendant No. 2 is still continuing as instead of
stopping and restoring the suit property in its original
condition, is still continuing with illegal activity. The cause of
action qua the defendant no. 1 arose on 27.05.2011, when
complaint was made to them but they failed to take any
action. The cause of action qua Defendant No. 1 is subsisting
as defendant No. 2 is still carrying out the illegal and
unauthorized structural changes and construction but
defendant no. 1 has not taken action till date.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP YADAV, SCJ, SAKET, NEW DELHI
CS. NO………. OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI Vs. MCD & Others
AFFIDAVIT
I, S. MANMOHAN SINGH BANGA, S/O Late S. Ujagar Singh, R/o C-76,

First Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017, do hereby solemnly
affirm, declare and depose as under:
1. That I am the Plaintiff No. 2 and now the only plaintiff in the
captioned Suit and as such I am well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case. Hence I am competent to depose this
Affidavit.
2. That I have filed the accompanying application under Section 151

CPC, r/w Order 8 Rule 3 and Order 6 Rule 1 CPC, the contents of
which are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this 13 th day of September 2011, that the

contents of the above Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and
nothing material has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT
Jhuc3\].”?11.a dcfnp 0
passed.
Place : Delhi
Dated: 15.11.2011
PLAINTIFF
Through
Counsel
R.K. Sachdeva &
Gaurav Sachdeva
Advocates
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this the 15th day of November

2011, that the contents of Para 1 to ___ of the plaint are true
received. The last Para of the plaint is prayer to this Hon’ble
Court.
PLAINTI
FF
Any other order or orders as this Hon. Court may deem fit and
passed.
Place : Delhi
Dated: 15.11.2011
PLAINTIFF
Through
Counsel
R.K. Sachdeva &
Gaurav Sachdeva
Advocates
CS. NO………. OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
SURESH VASWANI Vs. SANJAY JAIN
AFFIDAVIT
I, Suresh Vaswani son of Late Sh. S.R. Vaswani, R/o F-2/82, Sector 16,
Rohini, Delhi and also at B-1/276, Sector 17, Rohini, Delhi, do hereby
solemnly affirm, declare and depose as under:
1. That I am the Plaintiff in the captioned Suit and as such I am well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence I am
competent to depose this Affidavit.
2. That I have filed the accompanying suit for permanent injunction,

the contents of which are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this the 15th day of November 2011, that the
nothing material has been concealed there from
DEPONENT
CS. NO………. OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
SURESH VASWANI Vs. SANJAY JAIN
AFFIDAVIT
I, Suresh Vaswani son of Late Sh. S.R. Vaswani, R/o F-2/82, Sector 16,
Rohini, Delhi and also at B-1/276, Sector 17, Rohini, Delhi, do hereby
solemnly affirm, declare and depose as under:
1. That I am the Plaintiff in the captioned Suit and as such I am well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence I am
competent to depose this Affidavit.
2. That I have filed the accompanying Application under Order 39 Rule

1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, the contents of which are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this the 15th day of November 2011, that the
nothing material has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT
C. S NO. ______ OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
SURESH VASWANI ---------------- PLAINTIFF
VS.
SANJAY JAIN --------------- DEFENDANT
KNOW all to whom these present that I, Suresh Vaswani, S/o Late Sh. S.R. Vaswani, R/o F-2/82, Sector 16,
Rohini, Delhi and also at B-1/276, Sector 17, Rohini, Delhi, the above named Plaintiff in the captioned matter
do hereby appoint:
Mr. R.K. Sachdeva & Mr. Gaurav Sachdeva, Advocates
C-21, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017. (Mob. 9910006297-9810006297)
To act, appear and plead in the above noted case in this Court or in any other Court in which the same
may be tried or heard and also in the appellate Court including High Court subject to payment of fees
separately for each court by me/us.
To sign, file, verify and present pleadings appeals, cross-objections or petitions for executions review,
revision, withdrawal , compromise or other petitions or affidavits or other documents as may be deemed
necessary or proper for the prosecution of the said case in all its stages subject to payment of fees for each
stage.
To file and take back documents, to admit and/or deny the documents of opposite party.
To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any differences or disputes that may
arises touching or in any manner relating to the said case.
To take execution proceedings.
To deposit, draw and receive monthly cheques, cash and grant receipts thereof and to do all other acts
and things which may be necessary to be done for the progress and in the course of the prosecution of the
said case.
To appoint and instruct any other legal Practitioner authorizing him to exercise the power and authority
hereby conferred upon the Advocate whenever he may think fit to do so and to sign the power of attorney on
our behalf.
And I/We the undersigned do hereby agree to ratify and confirm all acts done by the Advocate or his
substitute in the matter as my/our own acts, as if done by me/us to all intents and proposes.
And I/We undertake that I/We or my/our duly authorized agent would appear in Court on all hearings
and will inform the Advocate for appearance when the case is called.
And I/We the undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the advocate or his substitute responsible for the
result of the said case. The adjournment costs whenever ordered by the Court shall be of the Advocate which
he shall receive and retain for himself.
And I/We the undersigned do hereby agree that in the event of the whole or part of the fee agreed by
me/us to be paid to the advocate remaining unpaid he shall be entitled to withdraw from the prosecution of the
said case until the same is paid up. The fee settled is only for the above case and above Court. I/We hereby
that once fee is paid, I/We will not be entitled for the refund of the same in any case whatsoever and if the
case prolongs for more than 3 years the original fee shall be paid again by me/us.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I do hereunto set my hand to these presents the contents of which have been
understood by me on this 15th day of November 2011
Accepted subject to the terms of the fees.
Advocate Client Client

C.S. No ………… of 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
MOHD. HUSSAIN
S/o Janab Baker Hussain
R/o F-2/82, Sector 16,
Rohini, Delhi-110 085. ……. PLAINTIFF
Versus
Sh. SURESH VASWANI

S/o Late Sh. S.R. Vaswani
R/o B-1/276, Sector 17,
Rohini, Delhi-110 085. ……. DEFENDANT
1. That the Plaintiff is the lawful tenant in respect of the entire single
storey built-up House/Property bearing No. F-2/82, situated at Sector
16, Rohini, Delhi, (hereinafter referred as to the suit property ir demised
premises) of/under the above named defendant by virtue of a lease
agreement dated _______, copy of which is enclosed herewith. The rent in
respect of the suit premises is Rs.4000/= (Rupees Four Thousand only)
per month, excluding electricity and water consumption charges, which
are payable as per actual consumption/bills.
2. That the plaintiff has been enjoying the continuous, peaceful and
uninterrupted possession of the demised premises since inception of the
tenancy without any sort of obstruction or interference by/of any one.
The plaintiff has been regularly paying the rent and other charges every
month since inception, but the defendant has not issued any receipt till
date. The plaintiff also tried to give the rent by way of cheque twice, but
the defendant straight away refused to accept any cheque.
It is important to mention here that at the time of entering into an

agreement, the defendant categorically agreed for uninterrupted water
supply in the demised premises but the old bore water pump is not
working and as such the plaintiff is facing acute problem of water.
Though the defendant is under an obligation to provide proper water
supply but despite repeated requests, the defendant has not made any
alternative arrangement till date. Howsoever, the plaintiff is some how
managing and pulling on.
3. That last month, in the first week of October, 2011, when the
defendant came to collect the rent, though the plaintiff paid the entire
rent to the defendant and there was also no intention to stop the
payment of rent in future, but since the requests (for water connection)
always fell into the deaf ears, the plaintiff only in order to remind the
obligation, when told him that if proper arrangement is not made within
10 or 12 days, the plaintiff would buy the water from water supplier at
the cost and expense of the defendant. On this, the defendant got
annoyed and clearly told the plaintiff to vacate the demised premises
soon and in any case before 31.10.2011. The plaintiff did not take it
seriously and treated it as reciprocal threatening. He (the plaintiff)
thought that the defendant might have said so because he himself told
the defendant about non payment of rent, but when he will pay the rent
next month, there will not be any problem.
4. That although the advance rent (for November 2011) was payable
and due on 7th of November 2011, but because of the aforesaid talks (last
month), the plaintiff personally went to the defendant for payment of rent
on 02.11.2011, but the defendant clearly refused to accept the same and
the plaintiff came back there from. On 7th - 8th November, 2011, the
defendant sent three-four persons/friends/agents/associates at the suit
property, out of which one was referred/called as Jain Saab by another
person. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff was not present
there at that point of time and it was Momin, a friend and colleague of
the plaintiff, present in the property, thus he requested them to come
tomorrow and talk to the plaintiff only. He clearly told them that what
may come, he will not go out in the absence of the plaintiff. that since he
is not the tenant They clearly asked at that point of time, but again
went to the defendant on 5th or 6th told the defendant that he was under
an impression that since he (plaintiff) has simply told him (defendant)
that he will deduct the charges for water supply, the defendant has made
counter attack and told him to vacate. The plaintiff also told the
defendant that when he is paying the rent and not deducting anything,
then why he is not accepting the same. The plaintiff repeatedly requested
the defendant When the whole month was about to pass and
defendant
lot of time while paying the rent to the , this plaintiff for payment of rent
in his own rights as lawful sole and absolute owner thereof, by virtue of a
registered agreement to sell dated ______ coupled with registered general
power of attorney also dated _______
(both documents duly registered as Doc. No. ______ Book No. I, Vol. No.
_______, on pages from ____ to ____ and Doc. No. ______ Book No. I, Vol.
No. _______, on pages from ____ to _____ respectively on ______ in th
1. Mrs. Khadija
D/o Late Shri Abdul
W/o Shri Ashok Kumar
New Delhi 110017
Also at:
F-224, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi 110030
2. Sher Mohammad
S/o Late Shri Abdul Sattar
R/o 149, Village Hauz Rani,

New Delhi 110017. …. Defendants

149/1 (adjacent to Property No.150-152) situated at Village Hauz
Rani, near Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017.
2. That the Plaintiffs are the tenants under the Defendant No.1
by virtue of Lease Agreement dated 01.05.2009, whereby the
Defendant No.1 let out to the Plaintiffs one Room/Unit, measuring
approx. 10 x 12 Sq. Ft. along with common Toilet/Bathroom, in/of
at Village Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017, as also shown in red
colour in the site plan filed herewith, along with necessary
amenities (Hereinafter collectively referred to as the Suit Property)
for a period 3 (three) years commencing from 1 st May 2009 and
expiring on 30th April 2012 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1800/=
(Rupees Eighteen Hundred Only). The electricity and water
consumption charges are excluded. However the plaintiffs are the
statutory tenants and thus tenancy is protected by Delhi Rent
Control Act.

No.1 and the owner and in possession of adjacent (other) portion of
the property bearing No. 149 (adjacent to Property No. 140 A)
situated at Village Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017, as also shown in
the said site plan enclosed herewith.
4. That the defendant No. 2 had been harassing the plaintiffs in
one way or the other since inception of tenancy. In fact, the
intentions of the defendant no. 2 were malafide and dishonest
since beginning and he never wanted the plaintiffs to remain there
and enjoy the demised premises so that he could usurp the
property of defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 2 is in habit of
picking-up squabble with the plaintiff. He tried hard to remove the

plaintiffs there from, while he does not have any connection, rights
or interest. When the plaintiffs did not care of these things, the
defendant No. 2 even offered another accommodation to the
plaintiffs, but they did not agree to that.
5. That the plaintiffs have been paying rent to the Defendant No.
1 regularly and punctually since inception of their tenancy but for
the last about one year, neither she herself came to collect the rent,
nor did she send any person. The plaintiffs also could not contact
her. In the mean time, the defendant no. 2 one day closed the
common way/passage (dividing the properties of defendants) by
erecting a wall, while plaintiffs were away at work. On being asked
as to how the plaintiffs would have access, ingress and egress, the
defendant no. 2 asked the plaintiffs to use the side way/passage
(from his own property side). Since the defendant No. 2 is very
aggressive and gets hyper as also always be ready for fight, the
plaintiffs in order to avoid confrontation agreed to the same and
started using the side entrance for ingress and egress on the
instance and instructions of the defendant no. 2. Though it is
apparent that D-2 must have done it with dishonest intention and
there must be something amiss, but the real cause/reason is best
known to the defendant no. 2.
6. That the defendant No. 2 and his son Mohd. Zuber have
threatened the plaintiffs many times in the past and asked them to
vacate the Suit Premises. Thereafter, the defendant No. 2 started
demanding rent/occupation charges from the plaintiffs for staying
in the Suit Property. On being asked about the reason or occasion
for paying such charges to defendant No.2, when the D-1 is the
owner and plaintiffs have been paying the rent to her, the
defendant No.2 furiously replied that if the plaintiff wants to reside
there, then they have to pay the charges for such occupation. Since
the plaintiffs were already paying the monthly rent to defendant
No.1, they asked the defendant No.2 to better clarify as to whom
the rent should be paid. But without going in to any controversy

the defendant No.2 very clearly and categorically stated that he
(defendant No.2) do not bother as to whether the rent is paid to
defendant No.1 or not but he wants a sum of Rs.1500/- (Rupees
Fifteen Hundred Only) per month for letting the plaintiffs to stay in
the Suit Property otherwise the plaintiffs had to vacate the suit
property.
7. That the plaintiffs are poor people, having their families and
surviving on meager incomes. Since it was not possible for them to
full-fill the illegal demand of the Defendant No. 2, they did not pay
any such illegal charges to the Defendant No. 2. In the mean time,
relative of Defendant No. 1 came and collected the rent from the
plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs are peace loving persons and do not
want to indulge in any controversy, they clearly told the defendant
no.2 that since they are statutory tenant under defendant no.1,
defendant no.2 has no right to get the suit property vacated from
the plaintiffs or to demand any charges illegally. On this the
defendant no.2 told a lie that it is her cousin sister (defendant
no.1) only who wants to get the suit property vacated and the
defendant no.2 is just following the instructions of defendant no.1,
though it was concocted falsity. However, the plaintiffs immediately
tried to contact the defendant no.1 to know the truth. Though he
could not contact defendant no. 1 personally but it has been
revealed by some relative of the D-1 that D-1 has never authorized
D-2 to interfere, take rent or get the demises premises vacated.
However, it might be possible that the defendant no.1 in
connivance with defendant no.2 wants to get the suit premises
vacated.
8. That when it became known to the defendant no.2, that the
plaintiffs would not meet his illegal demands, he (D-2) and his
family members again started troubling the plaintiffs, though the
plaintiffs always tried to tolerate their nuisance. On 22-23 August
2011, the plaintiff no. 2 was away and when the plaintiff No.1
came back to the suit property from the job, the defendant no.2
along with his sons Mohammad Zuber and Shah Nawaz came to
plaintiff No.1 and asked him to vacate the suit property
immediately. The plaintiff no.1 requested the defendant no.2 and
his sons that since he (plaintiff) had come from the job and is tired,
it would be better to talk next morning but the defendant no.2 did
not pay any heed to the request and instead threatened the
Plaintiff No. 1 with dire consequences. When the plaintiff clearly
refused to vacate, the defendant no.2 immediately took out the
sharp-edge weapon, may be Razor and bang on the forehead of the
plaintiff no.1. Not only that the sons Mohammad Zuber and Shah
Nawaz also joined the defendant no.2 and started beating up the
plaintiff no.1 without any rhyme and reason.
The plaintiff without wasting any time immediately called the Police
Control Room at 100 Number. Seeing this, the passers by along
with some neighbours intervened and stopped the defendant no. 2.
In the mean time Police arrived but before the plaintiff could
register the complaint, some well wishers/relatives of defendant
no.2 who are residing in the vicinity, intervened and requested the
plaintiff no.1 not initiate any legal action against them. Not only
that, in order to show sympathy with the plaintiff, they people
asked the defendant and his sons to apologies and accordingly the
defendant no.2 along with his children apologized and assured the
plaintiff that such thing would never happen again. Since the
plaintiffs were compel, not to initiate any action, as also defendant
pretended being repentant and apologetic, the plaintiffs did not
initiate any action and withdrawn the call/complaint.
9. That the defendant No. 2 and his family again repeated their
illegal acts. On 29th August 2011, because of Eid celebrations, both
the plaintiffs were away at their native villages. The plaintiff no. 1
was at Mithapur, P.O. Gulauthi, District Buland Shahr, Uttar
Pradesh. When they came back on 2nd September 2011, they found
that the premises had been locked with some other lock, i.e lock
upon lock. However, after great persuasion, the lock was removed,
but the defendant again said that he will not let the plaintiffs
remain there.
The plaintiffs even thought of seeking the police assistance but

when they went to the concerned Police Station, the police officials
refused to lodge the complaint and the plaintiffs were told that it is
a civil matter, thus police would not do anything in this.
10. That again on 23rd September 2011, the defendant no.2 along
with his sons and two-three relatives came to the plaintiffs and
asked the plaintiffs that he is giving them one week time to vacate
the suit property by 30th September 2011. He threatened the
plaintiffs that in case the plaintiffs failed to vacate the premises on
30th September, they will forcibly throw them out and the goods
lying in the suit property will also be sold. When the plaintiff told
the defendant no.2 that their activities are illegal and unlawful and
they should better refrain there from, the defendant no.2 slapped
the plaintiff no.1 and clearly told him/them to take it as a last and
final warning. The defendant no.2 even went to that extent that he
told the plaintiffs that as far as possession is concerned, what may
come he will certainly take it on 30 th September and this time he
would call his relatives/brothers-in-law (known criminals and
gangsters in Meerut) who would cut them (plaintiffs) in to pieces.
It is submitted that while all this was going on, the Defendant No.
2 told his son to bring plain papers and get them signed from the
plaintiffs. Accordingly son of the defendant no. 2 brought two blank
papers and plaintiffs were made/forced to sign the same (blank),
without writing anything in front of the plaintiffs. The papers were
that of roller (lines) and defendant no. 2 after affixing some ticket/
stamp (almost in the middle or below the middle) on the same
asked the plaintiffs to sign in such a manner, that half signatures
should come on ticket and half on plain. Though both the plaintiffs
signed the different blank papers in a similar manner but the
plaintiff no. 1 was asked to append other signatures below
stamp/ticket, due to reason better known to defendant. The
plaintiff requested the defendant that he should better fill/write
whatever he wants to write but do not keep duly signed blank
papers with him. On being asked as to what the defendant intend
to write and why he has affixed a ticket, the son of defendant
abused the plaintiffs and said “tumhare paas bahut paise hein jo
hum likh lenge” that is to say, you have lot of money, which we
would write on it. In fact, he meant to say contrary. Howsoever,
thereafter, on the advice of some relative of the defendant, he got
the papers filled from him. The plaintiff no. 1 again requested the
defendant to show as to what has been written and give a copy
thereof. On this, it was told that they have made a simple
undertaking that plaintiffs will vacate the suit property on 30 th
September 2011. But neither it was shown properly, nor did they
give copy thereof to the plaintiffs. In the manner aforesaid, the
defendant obtained signatures of the plaintiffs on the said papers
in an illegal manner.
11. That neither the plaintiffs are the tenants of Defendant No. 2,
nor the defendant No. 2 is the owner/land lord of the suit
premises, yet he wants to usurp the same due to malafide and
dishonest intentions. The defendants cannot be permitted to take
law in their hands and to illegally evict the plaintiffs. Otherwise
also, the plaintiffs are the statutory tenants under Delhi Rent
Control Act and what to talk of defendant no. 2, even defendant no.
1, who is the actual owner/ landlady cannot evict the plaintiffs
without due process of law. It has now come to the notice that in
fact the defendant no. 2 always had dishonest intention and evil
eyes on the property and wanted to grab not only the suit property
but the entire property of Defendant No. 1.
It is submitted that the defendant No. 2 and his family have

already attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs several times earlier
also and it has become routine matter. Though the defendant
literally fought yet the plaintiffs always thought that how defendant
could forcibly take property which is the property of defendant no.
1. Thus even this time also, the plaintiffs did not take it seriously
and three-four days have already passed. But today, some well
wisher (happens to be defendant’s relative) has told the plaintiff
that this time there is lot of difference, and the defendant has
already made preparation. It has been revealed that defendant will
misuse the signed paper and will use it as a device and even the
defendant has also made arrangement with area beat police men.
Not only that, the defendant could resort to fighting with the help
of musclemen.
12. That in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as

the threatening by the defendant, the plaintiffs are apprehending
that the defendant No. 2 and his men will use the muscle power
and throw the plaintiffs and their belongings on the road on 30 th
September 2011 itself, as already threatened by them. There is
likelihood of their taking law in hands and evict the plaintiffs
without due process of law. If the defendant and his men are not
stopped/restrained from taking law in their hands and from taking
forcible possession of the suit property, not only the plaintiffs, but
the defendant no. 1 (who is the real owner/landlady) will also
suffer great loss and injury, to which there will be no adequate
relief, except injunction. Therefore the plaintiffs have no other
efficacious remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court to protect
their valuable and statutory rights and to restrain the Defendants
from dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the Suit Property without
due process of law and also from creating any hindrance in the
peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs.
13. That the cause of action first arose when the plaintiffs were
inducted by defendant No. 1 in tenancy in respect of suit premises
(as mentioned above and also shown in the plan) vide duly
executed lease agreement dated 01.05.2009. The cause of action
arose several times, when defendant no. 2 caused obstructions,
hindrance and interference and asked the plaintiffs to vacate the
suit property. It further arose when the defendant No.2 and his
sons and family quarreled for no reason. The cause of action for
filing the present suit finally arose on 23.09.2011, when the
defendant, his sons and few relatives not only threatened the
plaintiffs with dire consequences and to evict them forcibly on
30.09.2011 but forcibly took signatures on paper. The cause of
action further arose as there is likelihood of defendant’s taking law
in his hands and forcibly evicts the plaintiffs. The cause of action is
still subsisting.
14. That the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees and
jurisdiction on the relief of permanent injunction is fixed at Rs.
130/- and the requisite court fee has been affixed/paid along with
the suit.
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and parties to the
suit are also residing and working for gain within the jurisdiction
of this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER:
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and

submissions made in the Plaint, it is prayed that this Hon. Court
may be pleased to pass:
a) a decree of Permanent Injunction, thereby restraining the

Defendants, their agents, servants, musclemen, relatives,
assignees and representative or any other person claiming through
or under them from dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the suit
property i.e. Room/Unit measuring approx. 10 x 12 Sq. ft., in/of
at Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017, with common toilet/bathroom as
more precisely shown in red colour in the site plan annexed
herewith, without due process of law.
passed.
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 27.09.2011
PLAINTIFFS
Through
Counsel
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this 27th day of September

2011 that the contents of Para 1 to 12 of the plaint are true and
correct to our knowledge and that of Para 13 to 15 are believed
PLAINTI
FFS
PRAYER:


in/of Property bearing No. 149/1, (adjacent to Property
herewith.
Property.

may also be passed.
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 12.09.2011
PLAINTIFFS
Through
Counsel
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this 12 th day of September

2011 that the contents of Para 1 to ___ of the plaint are true
received. The last para of the plaint is prayer to this Hon’ble
Court.
PLAINTI
FFS
c) Pass any such order (s) or direction (s) as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case in favour of the Plaintiffs
and against the Defendants.
Place: New Delhi
Dated: ___.09.2011
Plaintiffs
Through
Counsel
CS. No……… of 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
Khadija. & Another … Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mohd. Hussain, aged about 32 years, son of Wakar Hussain

resident of 149/1, Hauzrani, New Delhi 110017, do hereby
solemnly affirm, declare and depose as under:-


DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-

DEPONENT
CS. No……… of 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
I, Ram Kumar son of Shri Kalika Prasad resident of 149/1,

Hauzrani, New Delhi 110017, do hereby solemnly affirm, declare
and depose as under:-

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-

DEPONENT
22-23 august 2011 – cause of action
Called pcr that sheru along with his son Mohd. Zuber and Shah
Nawaz beated me with sharpen weapon.
On head and forehead
Unauthorizedly tried to dispossess me
During eid went to parental village meethepur . p.o gulauthi,

district buland shaher u.p. 29th august
2nd September – locked the premises
Wife of sheru - sabra

Felt ill
During rain fall
5th September 2011 - gave undertaking
To vacate the premises by 30th septermber failing which face the

consequences.
To take the photocopy
Driver in bus (gramin seva)
Last 8 years – sher mohd. portion
Last 3 years – in khadija portion

Mr. SIRAJ AHMED SON OF NISAR AHMED RESIDENT -------
WIFE – SHANNO BEGUM
DAUGHTER – SHABA KHAN AND TANNO KHAN
SON - YAMIN KHAN
DAUGHTERS
HEENA KHAN & ARIBA KHAN
DJB – PUMP OPERATOR
3 YEARS – 2000 P.M. EXCLUDING ELECTRICITY AND
COMMON BATHROOM AND TOILET

13. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier there was a
separate entrance from the middle through a common passage
to the property of Defendant No. 1 as well as suit property and
to Defendant No. 2 also, but some time ago, the defendant No.
2 closed the middle passage and told the plaintiffs to use the
side entrance (adjacent to Property No. 140 A). Since the
defendant No. 2 is
149/1 (adjacent to Property No.150-152) situated at Village
Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017.
15. That the Plaintiffs are the statutory tenants, inducted by the
Defendant No.1 vide Lease Deed/Agreement dated 01.05.2008
whereby and where under the Defendant No.1 let out to the
Plaintiffs one Room/Unit, measuring approx. 10 x 12 Sq. Ft.
along with common Toilet/Bathroom, in/of Property bearing
No. 149/1 (adjacent to Property No.150) situated at Village
Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017, as more precisely shown in red
colour in the site plan annexed herewith, along with necessary
amenities (Hereinafter collectively referred to as the Suit
Property) for a period 5 (five) years commencing from 1 st May
2008 and expiring on 30th April 2013 on a monthly rent of Rs.
3000/= (Rupees Three Thousand Only) which stood enhanced
to Rs. 3200/- (Rupees Thirty Two Hundred Only) per month
on 1st May 2010. The electricity and water consumption
charges are excluded. However the plaintiffs are the
statutory tenants and thus tenancy is protected by Delhi
Rent Control Act.

No.1 and the owner and in possession of adjacent (other)
portion of the property bearing No. 149 (adjacent to Property
No. 140 A) situated at Village Hauz Rani, New Delhi 110017,
as more precisely shown in green colour in the site plan
annexed herewith.
17. That the brief facts which have given rise to filing of the
present suit are as under:
a. That the Plaintiffs were enjoying the Suit Property being

statutory tenants under the Defendant No.1, vide Lease
Deed/Agreement dated 01.05.2008, paying thereof a monthly
rent of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) which stood
enhanced to Rs. 3200/- (Rupees Thirty Two Hundred Only) on
01.05.2010.
b. That right from the day of induction, the Defendant No. 2 had
an evil eye on the Suit Property as well as other part of the
property of D-1. The Defendant No.2 did does not want the
plaintiffs and/or any other person to stay there in the suit
property. The Defendant No.2 tried hard to get the Suit
Property vacated from the Plaintiffs on one or the other
pretext. He even gave the proposal to the plaintiffs to get them
a better tenanted place in a lesser rent, due to the reason best
known to him but when the plaintiffs did not agree to it he
could not succeeded in his ill motive, he (Defendant No.2) in
the month of July 2010 along with his son Mohd. Zuber came
to the plaintiffs and asked the plaintiffs in a threatening tone
to vacate the Suit Premises or else, pay the occupation
charges for staying in the Suit Property. On being asked about
the reason for paying such illegal occupation charges to
defendant No.2 and especially when the plaintiffs were paying
the rent to the owner/defendant No.1. To this the defendant
No.2 furiously replied that if the plaintiffs want to reside, then
they had to pay the charges for such occupation. Since the
plaintiffs were already paying the monthly rent to defendant
No.1, they asked the defendant No.2 to better clarify as to
whom the rent should be paid. But without going in to any
controversy the defendant No.2 very clearly and categorically
stated that he (defendant No.2) do not bother as to whether
the rent is paid to defendant No.1 or not but he wants a sum
of Rs.1500/- (Rupees Fifteen Hundred Only) per month for
letting the plaintiffs to stay in the Suit Property otherwise the
plaintiffs had to vacate the suit property.
c. The plaintiffs are hand to hand to mouth and running their

house and maintaining the family with great difficulty, it was
not possible for the plaintiffs to pay such an illegal and
arbitrary amount to defendant no.2 but it is also true that the
plaintiffs are law abiding citizen and does not want to create
any problem for them and their family which debar them from
earning their livelihood. The plaintiffs tried to contact the
defendant no.1 but to no avail. The defendant no. 1 did not
come forward. She did not even collect the rent since
September 2010.
d. The plaintiffs even thought of seeking the police assistance

but when they went to the concerned Police Station, the police
officials refused to lodge the complaint and the plaintiffs were
told that it is a civil matter, thus police would not do anything
in this. Since there was no other option as the defendant no.2
and his family members were creating problems and
obstruction for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs thought of paying
such illegal and untenable amount. Finally after negotiations,
the plaintiffs started paying Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand
Only) to the defendant No.2. When the plaintiffs asked the
defendant No.2 to give some receipt or acknowledgement of
the said amount, the defendant No.2 got furious and replied
that this is a mere amount for letting the plaintiffs stay in a
suit property and not a rent for which the receipt to be issued.
e. That thereafter the plaintiffs started paying such charges to

the defendant no.2 and started living there without any
hindrance or obstruction from defendant no.2 but not for
much time. In the second week of May 2011, the defendant
No.2 again came to the plaintiff no.1 and asked him to vacate
the Suit Property. The plaintiff no.1 thought that probably the
defendant no.2 wanted to increase the charges and that is the
reason the defendant no.2 wanted to get the premises vacate
but the plaintiffs clearly told the defendant no.2 that since
they are already paying such illegal charges to defendant no.2
with great difficulty inspite of the fact that neither the
defendant no.2 is the landlord nor the owner and thus they
refused to pay any extra/further amount.
f. Since the plaintiffs are peace loving persons, they do not want
to indulge in any controversy. The plaintiffs clearly told the
defendant no.2 that since the lease has been executed by
defendant no.1 and they are statutory tenant under defendant
no.1, defendant no.2 has no right to get the suit property
vacated from the plaintiffs and it is only the defendant no.1
that has the right to get the suit property vacated. On this the
defendant no.2 told that it is defendant no.1 only who wants
to get the suit property vacated and the defendant no.2 is just
following the instructions of defendant no.1. On this the
plaintiffs immediately tried to contact the defendant no.1 to
know the truth but could not contact her. They also visited
the defendant no.1 personally but to no avail.
It is submitted that despite many efforts, the plaintiffs could

not contact the defendant no.1. The plaintiffs thought that
either the defendant no.1 in connivance with defendant no.2
wants to get the suit property vacated from the plaintiffs, who
are the statutory tenant or in the absence of defendant no.1,
the defendant no.2 wants to grab the suit property. But since
the plaintiffs were busy in earning there livelihood and were
concerned with the tenancy only and had nothing to do with
the ownership or claimant of the suit property, the plaintiffs
kept mum.
g. That the defendant no.2 and his family members again started
troubling the plaintiffs. But the plaintiffs always tried to
tolerate the nuisance of the defendant no.2. But this was not
the end, on 22-23 August 2011, when the plaintiff No.1 came
back to his house (suit property) from the job, the defendant
no.2 along with his sons Mohammad Zuber and Shah Nawaz
came to plaintiff No.1 and asked him to vacate the suit
property immediately. The plaintiff no.1 requested the
defendant no.2 and his sons that since he (plaintiff) had come
from the job and is tired, it would be better to talk next
morning but the defendant no.2 again repeated the same
thing and asked to vacate the suit property. When the plaintiff
refused, the defendant no.2 immediately took out the sharp-
edge weapon and bang on the forehead of the plaintiff no.1.
Not only that the sons Mohammad Zuber and Shah Nawaz
also joined the defendant no.2 and started beating the plaintiff
no.1 without any rhyme and reason.
h. That the plaintiffs immediately called the PCR. Seeing this, the
passers by along with some neighbours intervened and
stopped the defendant no. 2. They also asked the defendant
No.2 to apologize for such intolerable behavior. Before the
plaintiffs could register their complaint to PCR and concerned
police station, the well wishers of defendant no.2 intervened
and requested the plaintiff no.1 not initiate any legal action
against them. Not only that, the defendant no.2 along with his
children also apologized and assured the plaintiffs that such
thing would never happen again. Since the plaintiffs were
compel not initiate any action as the good sense has prevailed
upon the defendants, they did not initiate any action and
withdrawn the call/complaint.
i. That on 29th August 2011, the plaintiff no. 1 went to his

parental village to celebrate Eid at Mithapur, P.O. Gulauthi,
District Buland Shahr, Uttar Pradesh. He also took the
plaintiff no.2 along with him. When they came back on 2 nd
September 2011, after celebrating the eid, they found that the
premises had been locked by some other lock. When the
plaintiffs tried to inquire from the other occupants/tenants of
the building/property, the wife of the defendant no.2 came out
and told the plaintiffs that she had put the other lock. When
the plaintiffs asked the wife of the defendant no.2 not to start
again, she gave a weird smile and told that this time she won’t
even allow the plaintiffs to enter the suit premises and the
goods lying in the suit property would also not be given back.
The plaintiffs requested the defendant No.2 and his family to
let them enter the suit premises but to no avail and as a result
the plaintiffs had to stay out of the suit property. Due to heavy
rain fall during those days, the plaintiff no.1 fell ill and
suffered viral fever. The plaintiffs remained out for 2 days and
finally on 5th September 2011 somehow the plaintiffs
succeeded in retaining back the Suit Property.
j. That though with the help of the neibhours, the plaintiffs were
allowed to use and occupy the Suit Property but the defendant
no.2 in connivance with neighbours took the signature of the
plaintiff no.1 on the court fee duly affixed on the plain/blank
paper. The defendant no.2 as well as his family members,
relatives, etc. mounted so much pressure on the plaintiffs that
they got the paper signed from the plaintiff no.1. When the
plaintiff no.1 tried to inquire about the document, it was told
that it’s just a mere undertaking. Before the plaintiffs could
inquire something more, they were asked to keep quiet
otherwise the keys would not be handed over to them. Since
the plaintiffs did not want to indulge in fight, they simply took
the keys from the defendant no.2 and went inside the suit
property.
k. That again on 15th September 2011, the defendant no.2 came

to the plaintiffs and asked the plaintiffs to vacate the suit
property by 30th September 2011 and threatened the plaintiffs
that in case if the plaintiffs failed to vacate the premises, they
would not spare the plaintiffs and throw them out and the
goods lying in the suit property would also be sold. When the
plaintiffs asked the defendant no.2 to stop this daily
nonsense, the defendant no.2 slapped the plaintiff no.2 and
clearly told him/them to take it as a last and final warning.
The defendant no.2 even went to that extent that he told the
plaintiffs that as far as possession is concerned, he would
certainly take it but this time he would call his brother-in-
laws who are gangsters in Meerut who would cut them
(plaintiffs) in to pieces.
l. That the plaintiffs tried to contact the defendant no.1 but

could not get any response. When the plaintiffs tried to
investigate the motive behind the vacation of plaintiffs, it was
revealed to them, that the defendant no.2 in garb of
collaboration/development wants to grab the suit property,
infact the entire property. Though the plaintiffs tried to inquire
more about the role of defendant no.1 as to whether the
defendant no.1 also have hand in gloves with defendant no.2
or it is only the evil mind of defendant no.2 but could not
succeeded in getting more information. But from the
neibhours, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant no.2
earlier also tried to grab the property and resulted thereto,
litigation begun between the defendants.
m. That on 18.09.2011, the Defendant No.2 again entered in to

the suit property without the permission and consent of the
plaintiffs and asked them to vacate the suit property and on
refusal from the plaintiffs, the Defendant No.2 got enraged
and tried to damage the furniture and other utensils etc. lying
in the suit property. The Defendant No.2 while leaving the suit
property threatened the Plaintiffs that if the suit property is
not vacated by 30th September 2011, the plaintiffs would be
eliminated.
18. That the Defendants are every now and then creating the
hindrance in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs by
threatening them with dire consequences, whereas the
Defendants have no right to interfere in the peaceful living of
the plaintiffs.
19. That the plaintiffs apprehends that the Defendants would evict
them forcibly from the Suit Property as they have got high
links in the society as well as with the local police, whereas
the Defendants have got no right to evict the Plaintiffs from
the Suit Property forcibly without following the due process of
law.
20. That the action of the Defendants are illegal, unlawful,

uncalled for, arbitrary, unwarranted, without any jurisdiction
and against the principle of natural justice. The plaintiffs are
living under the constant threats given by the Defendants
especially Defendant No.2 and if any un justice or damage is
caused to the plaintiffs or to the suit property, the Defendants
shall be held responsible for the same.
21. That the Plaintiffs have no other efficacious remedy available

except to approach this Hon’ble Court to protect their valuable
and statutory rights and to restrain the Defendants from
dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the Suit Property without due
process of law and also from creating any hindrance in the
peaceful possession of the Plaintiff.
22. Cause of action
23. That the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees on
the relief of permanent injunction is fixed at Rs. 130/- and the
requisite court fee has been affixed/paid along with the suit.
within the territorial jurisdiction and parties to the suit are
also residing and working for gain within the jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER:

in/of Property bearing No. 149/1 (adjacent to Property
herewith.

Property.

may also be passed.
Place: New Delhi
Dated: ___.09.2011
PLAINTIFFS
Through
Counse
CS. No……… of 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
ADDRESS FORM OF THE PLAINTIFS
1. Mobin
S/o Late Shri Aflatoon
New Delhi 110017
3. Mohd. Hussain
S/o Shri Baker Hussain
New Delhi 110017 ….. Plaintiffs

Filed by:
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 29.09.2011
Plaintiffs
Through
Himanshu Singhal
Advocate
L;;./R2268

Rohini Suit

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rohini Suit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ROHINI, DELHI

CS. NO………. OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

B-1/276, Sector 17,

Dr. SANJAY JAIN

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Plaintiff is seized and possessed of and otherwise well

(both documents duly registered as Doc. No. ______ Book No. I,

3. That prior to the purchase by the plaintiff (by way of

___________ was seized and possessed of the suit property in his

It is submitted that prior to the plaintiff, the erstwhile owner

possession thereof to Sh. Samir Dass after having received the

3. That the Defendant No.2 is the cousin brother of Defendant

4. That the defendant No. 2 had been harassing the plaintiffs in

picking-up squabble with the plaintiff. He tried hard to remove the

the rent should be paid. But without going in to any controversy

8. That when it became known to the defendant no.2, that the

The plaintiffs even thought of seeking the police assistance but

It is submitted that the defendant No. 2 and his family have

12. That in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as

a) a decree of Permanent Injunction, thereby restraining the

b) Costs of the Suit may be awarded to the plaintiffs.

Place: New Delhi

Verified at New Delhi on this 27th day of September

In view of the facts and circumstances stated above

a) a decree of Permanent Injunction, thereby

c) Costs of the Suit may be awarded to the plaintiffs.

d) Any other order or orders as this Hon. Court may

Verified at New Delhi on this 12 th day of September

b) Pass any such order (s) or direction (s) as this Hon’ble

CS. No……… of 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mobin & Another ... Plaintiffs

Khadija. & Another … Defendants

I, Mohd. Hussain, aged about 32 years, son of Wakar Hussain

1. That I am the Plaintiff No.2 in the present Suit and as such I

Verified at New Delhi on this the ______ day of September

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOUTH, NEW DELHI

CS. No……… of 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mobin & Another ... Plaintiffs

Khadija & Another … Defendants

I, Ram Kumar son of Shri Kalika Prasad resident of 149/1,

1. That I am the Plaintiff No.2 in the present Suit and as such I

2. That the accompanying application under Order 39 Rule 1 &

Verified at New Delhi on this the ______ day of September

22-23 august 2011 – cause of action

Unauthorizedly tried to dispossess me

During eid went to parental village meethepur . p.o gulauthi,

2nd September – locked the premises

Wife of sheru - sabra

During rain fall

5th September 2011 - gave undertaking

To vacate the premises by 30th septermber failing which face the

To take the photocopy

Driver in bus (gramin seva)

Last 8 years – sher mohd. portion

Last 3 years – in khadija portion

WIFE – SHANNO BEGUM

DAUGHTER – SHABA KHAN AND TANNO KHAN

SON - YAMIN KHAN