Delhi District Court
Smt. Santosh vs Raj Kumar Ors on 13 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYANKA RAJPOOT,
SCJ-CUM-RC, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI
(THE THEN SCJ-CUM-RC, NORTH WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI)
JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLNW03-000557-2013
CS SCJ No. 61413/16
Santosh
W/o Sh. Kundan Singh Rajpal
R/o. B-9/215, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
……Plaintiff
Versus
1. Raj Kumar
R/o. B-9/260, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
2. North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner
Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi.
3. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi.
4. The SHO,
Police Station South Rohini,
Delhi-110085,
……Defendants
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 1 of 17
Date of Institution : 23.01.2013
Date of Reserving of Order : 23.05.2025
Date of Pronouncing of Order : 13.06.2025
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed
by the plaintiff seeking following relief:-
A decree of permanent injunction in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants to restrain them, their
agents, attorneys, associates, representatives, employees
etc. or any other person acting on their behalf, from
obstructing the laying/reconstructing/repair the roof of
the suit property bearing No.B-9/215, Sector-3, Rohini,
Delhi by the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever and from
causing any obstruction, hindrance or obstacles to the
plaintiff, his labourers and masons.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The plaintiff is a tenant residing in the suit property
bearing no. B-9/215, Sector 3, Rohini, Delhi, comprising
of a single-room with a kitchen, bathroom and latrine,
along with her family since 1989. The suit property was
let out to her by Smt. Shanti Devi, against a refundable
security deposit of Rs.20,000/- and she paid rent to her
regularly. After the demise of Smt. Shanti Devi, defendant
no.1, who has no right or interest in the suit property,
began interfering with the possessory rights of the plaintiff
with the intent to usurp the property.
3. In the year 2006, defendant no.1 attempted to dispossess
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 2 of 17
the plaintiff and therefore, she filed a suit for permanent
injunction suit against defendant no. 1. In that case, the
defendant no. 1 admitted that plaintiff is in the possession
of the suit property and on 18.07.2012, he gave a
statement before the court that he would not dispossess her
without due process of law.
4. Due to the old and poor condition of the suit property,
especially the dilapidated roof, the roof of the property fell
down and it became uninhabitable. The plaintiff began
reconstructing the roof in the year 2010 after the defendant
no. 1 refused to assist or take responsibility for repairs.
However, when the plaintiff tried to do construction/repair
work, he obstructed the repairs with the help of anti-social
elements, local police and MCD officials and prevented
the plaintiff from completing the roof work.
5. Further, defendant no.1 filed a false suit for permanent
injunction and obtained an interim restraining order
against the plaintiff against alleged unauthorized
construction. However, the said suit was dismissed as
withdrawn on 19.09.2012.
6. In November 2012, defendant no.1 again started harassing
and obstructing the plaintiff from reconstructing the roof
of the suit property and she was forced to live under a
plastic sheet due to the collapsed roof.
7. The plaintiff alleged that her tenancy is protected under
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 3 of 17
the Delhi Rent Control Act and that she is willing to bear
all expenses for the reconstruction.
8. Being the lawful occupant of the suit property, the plaintiff
claims that she has right to reconstruct the same and no
permission or sanction plan is required from defendant
no.2. She also stated that defendant no.1 is not a legal heir
of Smt. Shanti Devi and thus, he has no title or interest in
the suit property.
9. Hence, the present suit is filed to restrain the defendants
from creating obstruction in the reconstruction/repair of
the roof of the suit property.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
10. Broadly, the written statement filed by defendant no. 1
contains following assertions:
i. The plaintiff vacated the suit property in October 2010
and has been residing elsewhere on rent.
ii. The plaintiff demolished the original structure of the
suit property and began unauthorized construction
without permission from defendant no. 1 or any
competent authority.
iii. Vide order dated 04.12.2010, Ld. ACJ-cum-ARC,
North-West, Rohini restrained the plaintiff from
carrying out further construction at the suit property inCS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 4 of 17
an injunction suit filed by defendant no.1.
iv. The suit property is now a heap of dust and bricks. It is
not in a habitable condition. Electricity bills since
December 2010 show zero usage and establishes that it
has been left by the plaintiff two years ago.
v. Defendant no. 1 is the real son/legal heir of Late Smt.
Shanti Devi, who was the original owner of the suit
property.
vi. Neither any tenancy was ever created in favor of the
plaintiff nor any rent or security deposit was paid by
her.
vii. Shri Kundan Singh Rajpal, who is husband of the
plaintiff, was permitted to live in the suit property on
humanitarian grounds about 17 years ago due to
personal hardship but not as a tenant. Presently, the
whereabouts of plaintiff’s husband is not known to
defendant no.1.
viii. The earlier suit of permanent injunction filed by the
plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
18.07.2012.
ix. Defendant no. 1 also filed an injunction suit and police
complaints when plaintiff demolished the original
structure of the suit property and attempted to carry out
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 5 of 17
unauthorized construction. In the said suit, a status
report was filed by the MCD stating that on 09.02.2011,
demolition action was taken by it.
x. No built-up house exists on the suit property as the
plaintiff demolished it under the guise of repair.
xi. The plaintiff has no right under the Delhi Rent Control
Act to demolish and reconstruct the property without
the consent of the landlord.
xii. Defendant no. 1 is the rightful owner and is lawfully
protecting his property from unauthorized
encroachment and construction.
11. The summary of written statement filed by defendant no.
2/MCD is mentioned as below :-
i) the present suit is barred by provisions of Section 477
and 478 of DMC Act for want of service of notice.
ii) The present suit is devoid of cause of action.
iii) The suit property was inspected by the officials of
MCD and it was found to be without any roof and in a
dilapidated condition.
iv) To construct the suit property as per standard building
plan of the DDA, the owner has to seek permission fromCS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 6 of 17
the MCD.
12. Without going into the full particulars, the written
statement filed by defendant no. 3/DDA broadly states as
follows:
i) The present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has
not served the DDA with the notice under section 53B of
the DDA Act.
ii) As per record, Smt. Shanti Devi was allotted the suit
property on 16.01.1995.
ISSUES
13. On completion of the pleadings of the parties, following
issues were framed on 29.04.2014 :-
i) Whether the suit is devoid of cause of action?
OPD-1
ii) Whether the plaintiff is guilty of concealing material
facts? (OPD-1)
iii) Whether the suit is bad of non service of prior notice
u/s 477-478 of DMC Act? (OPD-2)
iv) Whether the suit is bad of non service of prior notice
u/s 53-B of DDA Act? (OPD-3)
v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 7 of 17
permanent injunction as prayed for? (OPP)
vi) Relief.
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE:
14. In order to prove his case, plaintiff herself as PW-1 and led
his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied
upon following documents:-
i) Copy of Voter ID card is Mark A.
ii) Copy of order dated 18.07.2012 is Mark B.
iii) Copy of complaint dated 11.12.2012 is Mark C.
15. She was cross examined at length by ld. counsels for
defendants no.1, 2 and 3.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
16. Defence evidence was led by the defendants. Defendant
no.1 examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his evidence
affidavit Ex.DW1/A and relied upon following documents.
i) Aadhar card Ex.DW1/1.
ii) Ownership of the suit property Ex.DW1/2.
iii) Case bearing no. 884/2006, Ex.DW1/3.
iv) Money order Ex.DW1/4.
v) Anticipatory bail rejection order Ex.DW1/5.
vi) Dasti summons Ex.DW1/6.
vii) Court order dated 04.12.2010 Ex.DW1/7.
viii) Status report of the IO dated 06.01.2011 Ex.DW1/8.
ix) Status report of NDMC Rohini Zone Ex.DW1/9.
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 8 of 17
x) Electricity bill Ex.DW1/10.
xi) Removal of electricity meter Ex.DW1/11.
xii) Copy of order dated 16.02.2015 Ex.DW1/12.
17. Defendant no.2 examined Sh. Ghanshyam Meena, Asstt.
Engineer, Rohini Zone, MCD as DW-2. He tendered his
evidence affidavit Ex.DW2/A and relied upon only one
document i.e. photograph already marked as PW1/D4.
18. Defendant no.2 also examined Sh. Paramjit Singh, Jr.
Engineers, Rohini Zone, MCD, Rohini as DW3. He
deposed that on 05.12.2024, he went to the suit property
and found that it is not in a habitable condition. He clicked
a photograph of the suit property from his mobile phone
make One Plus 9R. He relied on the said photograph
Ex.DW1/D2 (original seen from his mobile and returned).
He also relied upon a certificate U/s. 65B of the Evidence
Act Ex.DW3/1.
19. All the defence witnesses were duly cross examined by
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and discharged.
20. No other witness was examined by the defendants,
accordingly DE was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
21. Written arguments were filed on behalf of plaintiff,
defendant no.1 and defendant no.3/DDA. Record perused.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
22. In a nutshell, the case of the plaintiff is that she has been
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 9 of 17
in possession of the suit property since 1989. She was
inducted there as a tenant by the original owner, Smt.
Shanti Devi. Due to the dilapidated condition and
subsequent collapse of the roof, the plaintiff wants to carry
out necessary repairs/reconstruction. However, the
defendants are interfering with her possessory rights and
obstructing the repair/reconstruction work at the suit
property.
23. Accordingly, the plaintiff is seeking a decree of permanent
injunction to restrain the defendants from causing any
obstruction or hindrance to the plaintiff in repairing,
reconstructing or laying the roof of the suit property in any
manner.
The issue no. 5 before this court is – whether the plaintiff
is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction.
24. The burden of proof was on the plaintiff to establish her
entitlement to such relief.
25. To substantiate her case, the plaintiff examined herself as
PW-1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint in her
evidence affidavit.
26. She relied upon – (i) a copy of her Voter ID card (Mark
A), (ii) a copy of the order dated 18.07.2012 (Mark B)
passed in a prior suit for injunction (CS No. 914A/09),
wherein defendant no. 1 gave an undertaking not to
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 10 of 17
dispossess her without due process of law and (iii) a copy
of the police complaint dated 11.12.2012 lodged against
defendant no. 1 (Mark C).
27. However, upon scrutinizing the pleadings, evidence and
other material on record, this court is of the considered
view that the present suit is not maintainable and is devoid
of merit for the reasons discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Non-Impleadment of Necessary and Proper Parties:
28. The plaintiff has stated that she was inducted as a tenant in
the suit property by one Smt. Shanti Devi (now deceased),
the original owner of the said property. However, the
plaintiff has not impleaded the legal heirs or successors-in-
interest of Smt. Shanti Devi, who would be the lawful
owners and in the eyes of law, her landlords after the
demise of Smt. Shanti Devi.
29. Notably, the plaintiff has nowhere stated that Smt. Shanti
Devi died without leaving behind any legal heirs nor has
she claimed that she is unaware of their identities. Rather,
she merely claimed that no one has demanded rent from
her after the death of Smt. Shanti Devi.
30. However, this does not absolve her of the obligation to
implead the landlords/owners of the suit property in a suit
seeking to repair or reconstruct the same. In such a case,
the presence of the landlord or current owner is necessary
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 11 of 17
for proper adjudication of the case.
31. It is a well-settled legal principle that a tenant cannot seek
a relief in relation to structural changes or reconstruction
without impleading the owner/landlord of the property.
Thus, the suit of the plaintiff not maintainable on this
ground alone.
Unambiguous Position Regarding Defendant No. 1:
32. The plaintiff has, throughout her pleadings, taken the
categorical stand that defendant no. 1 is a stranger to the
suit property and has no right, title or interest therein. At
the same time, she pleaded in her plaint that she requested
defendant no.1 to get the roof of the property repaired, but
he refused on the ground that he had no concern with the
suit property.
33. However, she has no where explained as to why she made
such a request at the first instance to some one who never
had any connection with the suit property.
34. In contrast, defendant no. 1 has filed a written statement
claiming himself to be the son of Smt. Shanti Devi and the
rightful owner of the suit property. In support of his claim,
he has placed on record documents disclosing the name of
his father so as to establish ownership in respect of the suit
property.
35. Despite being put to notice of such assertions and
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 12 of 17
documents, the plaintiff did not take steps to amend the
suit to reflect a cause of action based on ownership claims
of defendant no.1 and his refusal to undertake such
repairs. She nowhere pleaded that due to the claim of
ownership rights by defendant no.1 and his refusal to
reconstruct/repair the suit property, she is entitled to relief
the relief of repair/reconstruction against him.
36. Instead, the plaintiff maintained her earlier position and
reiterated in the replication that defendant no. 1 does not
have any relation with the suit property.
37. Thus, when the stand of the plaintiff is that defendant no.
1 is a stranger to the suit property, then no injunction can
be sought against him with respect to suit property in
which he claims ownership rights unless the rightful
owner is made a party to the suit.
Absence of Sanction Plan or Permission from Competent
Authorities:
38. The plaintiff has also sought relief against defendants no.
2 and 3, which are MCD and DDA respectively. However,
it is an admitted position that the plaintiff has neither
obtained nor applied for any sanction or permission from
the competent authority/MCD for the repairs or
reconstruction of the suit property.
39. Therefore, in such circumstances, no injunction can be
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 13 of 17
granted to restrain public authorities from interfering with
unauthorized or illegal construction. The law does not
recognize any such right in favour of a tenant or occupant
to alter or reconstruct a property without due permission
from competent authorities, especially when structural
changes are required to be done.
Nature of Possession and Condition of the Suit Property:
40. The plaintiff has consistently claimed that she has been
residing in the suit property and that she continues to be in
its possession till date. However, there is a contradiction in
her version when the same is compared with the
photographs of the suit property.
41. The photograph Ex.DW1/D2 and the photographs filed by
the plaintiff herself, along with the application dated
04.04.2025 clearly show that no standing structure
currently exists on the property and it is merely a heap of
debris and bricks.
42. The plaintiff has also admitted during cross-examination
that there is no electricity or water connection at the suit
property. Further, she stated that the roof of the suit
property had collapsed and was demolished by MCD.
43. Earlier, this court, taking note of the said facts, declined
the relief of temporary injunction to the plaintiff by
dismissing her application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of
CPC. The said order dated 29.04.2014 was upheld by the
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 14 of 17
Ld. District & Sessions Judge, North West, Rohini, Delhi
by observing that :
“10. Considering the fact that the electricity
connection has since been disconnected and even the
appellant/plaintiff has now been residing in Sector-2,
Rohini i.e at a place, other than the alleged tenanted
premises since long, after vacating the premises on
her own due to its pathetic condition and that her
name also being deleted from the voter’s list of the
impugned premises and further since the
photographs placed on the record, as also the report
of the police in a criminal case, sufficiently show
that the impugned premises is beyond repairs but has
to be reconstructed, being completely demolished,
hence a tenant cannot be allowed to do so without
the consent of the owner of the premises. In this
case, defendant no.1, the son/legal heir of the earst-
while owner is objecting to such a move of the
appellant as she has herself had vacated the premises
by admittedly shifting to some other tenanted
premises, rather shows that her motive is not to
claim her tenancy, but to get some benefit in such
dispute. She strangely has gone to the extent of
challenging the relation of defendant no. I with his
mother, the earst-while owner, which she has no
right. I fail to understand why she is so interested to
reconstruct the premises by spending lakhs of rupees
when she is claiming to be an alleged tenant in the
premises and further admittedly has vacated the
premises. It rather shows her intention to be different
than only to reclaim her status of a tenant in the
premises.”
44. The plaintiff has not challenged by the order dated
16.02.2015 of the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, North
West, Rohini, Delhi. As such, these findings have attained
finality.
45. Further, an affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of an
application dated 04.04.2025 shows that she has been
residing at a different address i.e. H.No. 92, Gram Sabha
Road, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Thus, there is
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 15 of 17
inconsistency between her oral testimony and the affidavit
supporting the application. Evidently, the plaintiff is no
longer in possession and that the property is uninhabitable
and requires reconstruction and not mere repairs, as
claimed by the plaintiff.
46. To sum up, the suit of the plaintiff is defective due to non-
impleadment of necessary parties, inconsistent pleadings,
absence of sanction and lack of cause of action against the
defendants. Accordingly, issue no. 5 is decided against the
plaintiff and issue no. 1 is decided in favour of defendant
no. 1.
Turning now to issue no. 2 – whether the plaintiff is guilty
of concealing material facts?
47. The onus was on defendant no. 1 to establish the same.
However, no evidence has been led by him in this regard.
As such, the issue no.2 is decided against him.
Lastly, issues no. 3 & 4 are whether the suit is bad of non
service of prior notice u/s 477-478 of DMC Act and 53-B
of DDA Act?
48. The burden of proof was on defendants no. 2 and 3.
However, they too have not adduced any evidence to
establish the same. Moreover, it is a settled position of law
that a suit for injunction, being of a preventive and urgent
nature, ordinarily does not require prior statutory notice.
Hence, these issues are also decided against the said
defendants.
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 16 of 17
CONCLUSION
49. In light of the foregoing discussion, this court finds that
the plaintiff has failed to establish, even on preponderance
of probabilities, that she is entitled to the relief sought in
the present suit. Consequently, the suit stands dismissed.
No order as to cost.
50. A decree sheet be prepared forthwith. No order as to cost.
Digitally signed
PRIYANKA by PRIYANKA
RAJPOOT
RAJPOOT Date: 2025.06.13
17:04:01 +0530
(Announced in the open Court) (PRIYANKA RAJPOOT)
Dated: 13.06.2025 SCJ-cum-RC:NEW DELHI DISTT.
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS/ NEW DELHI
(THE THEN SCJ-cum-RC (NORTH-WEST)
ROHINI COURTS/ DELHI)
CS SCJ No. 61413/16 Santosh v. Raj Kumar etc. 17 of 17