INTHECOURTOFGAURAVRAO,SENIORCIVIL JUDGECUMRENTCONTROLLER(SOUTHEAST), DISTRICTCOURTS,SAKET,NEWDELHI CSNo:50276/2016 CNRNo.[CASE NUMBER] Sh.[ENTITY] S/oSh.RanjeetKumarMandal ShopinR16,NehruEnclave, Kalkaji,NewDelhi-19. Plaintiff Versus 1. Sh.[ENTITY] S/oSh.BhagwanDass R/oH.No.1568,StreetNo.11, Govindpuri,Kalkaji, NewDelhi. 2. [ENTITY] ThroughitsCommissioner. Defendants Dateofinstitutionofsuit : 30.08.2013 DateonwhichJudgmentreserved : 23.09.2016 Dateonwhichjudgmentpronounced: 23.09.2016 Decision : Decreed JUDGMENT 1. Thepresentsuitforpermanentinjunctionhas [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 1/21 been filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant from illegallydispossessinghimfrompropertyi.e.shop/khokha measuring6'x5'inthepropertybearingno.R16,Nehru Enclave, Hans Raj Sethi Marg, Main Road near Paras Ground Gate No. 1, Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110019 (hereinafterreferredtoasthesuitproperty). Plaint 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is peace lovingandlawabidingcitizen,ateavendorbyprofession andisrunninghisteashop/khokhafromthesuitproperty fromthelastmorethan11years. 2.1 It is further his case that he has a domestic electricityconnectionvideCRNNo.2510112183fromBSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and telephone connection no. 26443639fromMTNLinthesuitpropertyinhisnameand hasbeenpayinguserchargesandrentalstotheconcerned departmentsforuseofsaidservices. 2.2 [ENTITY] bearingno.10590100007989withBankofBaroda,Nehru PlaceBranch,55,MadhubanNehruPlace,NewDelhiand [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 2/21 alsohasasavingsaccountinPostOfficeNehruPlacevide account no. 10007151, election ID Card bearing no. ARE1400829,PANCardbearingno.AUMBM3450Cand AdharCardNo.304253702467attheaddressofthesuit propertyandhealsohasaLICVidePoliceNo.332349682 atthesameaddress. 2.3 It is further his case that he has all the documentaryproofsinhispossessiontoprovethathehas beenrunningthesaidteachopfromthesuitpropertyforthe lastmorethan11yearsandthatthesaidshopistheonly sourceofincomeandsurvivaloftheplaintiffandhismother andapartfromthishehasnoothersourceofincome. 2.4 [ENTITY] his brotherinlaw and has illeye on the said shop/suit propertyandwanttoillegally,unauthorizedlytakethesuit propertyfromtheplaintiffbyusingmusclepowerandwants tothrowouttheplaintifffromthesaidshop.Itisfurtherhis case that the defendant is continuously attempting to forcibly throw out the plaintiff from the said shop and frequentlyvisitshisshopinordertoattempttoachievehis illmotive.Itisfurtherhiscasethatthedefendanthasbeen threateningtheplaintifftovacatethesaidshopandtohand [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 3/21 overthepossessionofthesametothedefendantotherwise hewillhavetofacedireconsequences. 2.5 [ENTITY] illmotive,thedefendanthasbeenharassingtheplaintiffby otherwaysalsoi.e.byfilingfalsecomplaintsagainsthimin policestation,Kalkaji,NewDelhiuponwhichthe police visits the plaintiff's shop to make inquiries on the false complaintsofdefendantno.1andthePoliceOfficialsofPS Kalkaji also called the plaintiff on few occasions on the complaints of the defendant and asked him to settle the disputewithdefendantno.1. 2.6 Itisfurtherhiscasethatthesaidshop/khokha wasmadebytheplaintiffhimselfanddefendantno.1has nothingtodowithitandhasnoconcernoverthesame. 2.7 It is further his case that whenever the defendant came tothe shop/suit prorpertyof theplaintiff andthreatenedhimtovacatethesame,healwaysreported themattertothepoliceP.S.Kalkajiprayingforprotection fromthethreatsandattemptsofillegaldispossessionfrom thesaidshopbythedefendant. [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 4/21 2.8 Itisfurtherhiscasethaton29.05.2013atabout 11:00a.m.thedefendantcametothe suitpropertyalong with4-5musclemenandthreatenedhimthatifhewillnot vacatetheshopandhandoverthepossessiontohimwithin twodaystheywillthrowhimoutfromtheshopalongwith his belongings. It is further his case that he reported the mattertotheSHOPSKalkajithroughawrittencomplaint [CASE NUMBER] takentilldatedbythepolice. 2.9 Itisfurtherhiscasethatagainon04.06.2013at about2:00p.m.thedefendantcamewithhissame4-5 musclemenandthreatenedhimthathehasnotobeyedthe defendantsdirectionstovacatethesaidshopandtheywill teachhimalessonandcomeagainintheeveningandwill throwhimoutofthesaidshop.Theplaintifffiledawritten complaintofthisincidentwiththeSHOPSKalkajionthe samedayvideDDNo.47Bbutagainnoactionwastakenby thepolicetoprotecttheinterest,lifeandlimboftheplaintiff from the cruel clutches of the defendant and his muscle men.Hencethepresentsuit. 3. Initially the suit was filed only against defendantno.1 i.e.[ENTITY]andSDMCwasimpleadedas [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 5/21 defendant no. 2 in pursuant to orders dated 20.12.2013 passedbytheLd.Predecessorofthiscourt.Thedefendants filedtheirseparatewrittenstatements. WrittenStatementofDefendantno.1. 4. Defendantno.1inhiswrittenstatementpleaded thatthatsuitoftheplaintiffisnotmaintainableasthesame isonlyabuseofandmisuseofprocessoflawandhenceis liabletobedismissed.Itwasfurtherpleadedthatthesuitis withoutanycauseofaction and theplaintiffhasnolocus standitofilethepresentcase. 4.1 It was furtherpleadedthatdefendantno.1is theactualallotteeofthesuitproperty andtheplaintiffhas illegallyandunlawfullyoccupiedthesamewithouthaving anyrighttitleorinterestinthesame. 4.2 It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has failedtoplaceonrecordanydocumentwithrespecttohis allegedownershipandpossessionoverthesuitpropertyfor theallegedperiodof11years.Itwasfurtherpleadedthatthe plaintiffisnottheallotteeofthesuitpropertyandinfactthe defendantwhoisaphysicallyhandicappedpersonhaving72 [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 6/21 %permanent disabilityaccordingtoCertificateissuedby Pt.MadanMohanMalviyahospitalon25.01.2012applied for the allotment of khokha/booth to various authorities includingMCDbesidesapproaching theMLAofhisarea namely Sh. [ENTITY], MLA (President) of Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee for the allotment of a [ENTITY]/PCO as to earn his livelihood and support his familyconsistingofhisoldagedmother,awidowsisterand two sonsandthesaidMLAmaderecommendationdated 06.03.2003fortheallotmentofthesaid[ENTITY]/PCObooth underhandicappedquotathereafterthephysicalpossession ofthesaid[ENTITY]/booth/suitproperty washandedoverto him in March 2003 and thereafter the defendant started runningthesaidkhokha,earnedhislivelihoodandheisin the peaceful use, occupation and possession of the suit property. 4.3 It was furtherpleadedthat he gotinstalledthe telephone connection, electricity connection in the suit propertyinhisnameandalsogotissuedthePANCardand RationCardfromthesaidaddresswhichclearlyproveshis possessionoverthesuitpropertysince2003.Itwasfurther pleaded that during the period of his work at the suit property,MCDchallanedhimseveraltimeswhich amount [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 7/21 waspaidbyhim. 4.4 It was furtherpleadedthattheplaintiffisthe brotherinlawofthedefendantwhocamefrom his native placeatKolkatatoearnhislivelihoodandsincehedidnot haveanyotheraccommodationinDelhihestartedresiding withthedefendantinhishouse.Itwasfurtherpleadedthat the defendant also got issued the relevant documents for identityandresidenceproof ofhisbrotherinlawi.e.the plaintiffundergoodfaithandtrustinordertosettlehimin Delhi. 4.5 Itwasfurtherpleadedthattheplaintiffusedto support the defendant in his work, however suddenly in January 2013 the defendant fell ill and was admitted in hospital. It was pleaded that at that time the plaintiff approachedthedefendantto runthe[ENTITY]/PCOto earn his livelihoodintheabsenceofdefendant,uponwhichthe defendantalso agreedtohandoverthesuitproperty tothe plaintiffaspermissiveuser/caretakerofthepremisestillhis physical condition doesnotbecome stable. It was further pleadedthat when the defendant was dischargedfromthe hospitalhedemandedbackthekeysofthesuitpropertybut theplaintiffstartedmakinglameexcusesononepretextor [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 8/21 otherandthereafter hebecamedishonestandhewiththe intentiontograbthesuitproperty,flatlyrefusedtohandover thekeysandpossessionofthesuitpropertytothedefendant and rather extended threats for dire consequences and a complaintinthisregardwasalsolodgedbythedefendanton 10.05.2013withthepoliceandotherauthorities. WrittenStatementofDefendantno.2. 5. Defendant no. 2 SDMC filed its written statement through Sh. [ENTITY] Executive Engineer Building. IntheWrittenStatementpreliminaryobjections weretakenthatthesuitisbarredunderSection477and478 ofDMCActforwantofstatutorynoticeandthattheplaint doesnotdiscloseanycauseofaction. 5.1 It was pleaded that the officials of MCD inspectedtheareaofRBlock,NehruEnclave,Kalkaji and found one [ENTITY] running unauthorizedly opposite shop no.16,RBlock,NehruEnclave,Kalkajiinthenameand styleofDeepakMandal. 5.2 It was pleaded that the plaintiff is not an authorizedtehbazariholder. [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 9/21 Replication 6. The plaintiff filed replications to the written statementofdefendantno.1and2anddeniedtheaverments of the written statements while simultaneously reiterating andreaffirmingthecontentsoftheplaint. ISSUES 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide proceedings dated 02.12.2015: 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunctionasprayed?OPP 2. Relief. PlaintiffEvidence 8. In order to prove his case plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and deposed on the lines of plaint. He tenderedhisevidencebywayof affidavitasEx.PW1and relieduponfollowingdocuments: 1. electricity bills along with connection related [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 10/21 documentsasEx. PW1/B(colly), 2. telephonebillsasEx.PW1/C(colly), 3. copyofbankpassbookasMarkA, 4. [ENTITY] 5. statementof accountno.00921000154641as Ex.PW1/E 6. copyofpassbookofpostofficeasMarkC, 7. copyofelectioncardasEx.PW1/F, 8. copyofPANCardasEx.PW1/G. 9. [ENTITY].PW1/H, 10. copyofLICpolicyasEx.PW1/I(colly), 11. photographsofsaidshop/suitpropertyasEx. PW1/J1toEx.PW1/J6, 12. moneyorderasEx.PW1/K1toEx.PW1/K 4. 13. [ENTITY], 14. copyoftaxreturnacknowledgmentasMarkE (colly) 15. challanbyMCDintheyear2011andfine paymentasMarkF(colly), 16. complaintdated29.05.2014asEx.PW1/O and, 17. complaintdated04.06.2013asEx.PW1/P. [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 11/21 Defendant's evidence 9. As against this defendants did not lead any evidence in their defence. In fact defendant no. 1 was proceeded exparte vide proceedings dated 14.10.2014. Thoughapplicationwasmovedbyhimforsettingasidethe exparteorders,however,thesaidapplicationwasdismissed bytheLd.Predecessorofthiscourtvideproceedingsdated 19.10.2015. Findings 10. IhaveheardtheLd.counselforparties,have givendueconsiderationtotherivalcontentionsraisedatbar andhavecarefullygonethroughtherecord. 11. Myissuewisefindingisasunder: Whetherplaintiffisentitledtodecreeof permanentinjunctionasprayed?OPP 11.1 Innutshellthegrievanceoftheplaintiffisthat he is running a [ENTITY]/shop at the suit property and defendantisthreateningtoillegallydispossesstheplaintiff fromthesame. [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 12/21 11.2 Attheoutsetitistobeseenthatthereliefhas beensoughtonlyquadefendantno.1andnoreliefhasbeen soughtagainstdefendantno.2i.e.SouthDelhiMunicipal Corporation.Thesuitasdiscussedabovewasinitiallyfiled against[ENTITY](defendantno.1)only,howeverevenafter theSDMCwasimpleadedasdefendantno.2inpursuantto ordersdated20.12.2013passedbytheLd.Predecessorof thiscourt,theplaintiffoptednottofileanyamendedplaint andonlyamendedmemoofpartieswasfiled.Ihavegone throughordersdated14.10.2014,26.03.2015,03.06.2015and 15.07.2015 in this regard. Hence, what emerges from the records is that the grievances of the plaintiff if any are againstdefendantno.1andnotdefendantno.2. 11.3 No allegations being made against defendant no. 2, no relief being sought accordingly plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction against defendant no. 2. Furthermore,itstandsprovedfromtherecordthatthesuit property/the khokha/shop is situated on government land. The plaintiff during his cross examination stated in this regard as "it is correct that it is government land". Admittedly,hehasnotehbazarilicenseorpermissionfrom MCD/defendantno.2oranyotherconcernedauthorityto [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 13/21 runthesaidshop/khokha/teastall.Therelevantportionof hiscrossexaminationreadas "Ihavenotehbazarilicense orpermissionfromMCDtorunthisteastall.Vol.Ihave beenchallanedmanytimesbyMCDandIamincontinuous possession.ItiscorrectthatMCDhasbeenremovingmy goodsfromtimetotimebutIhavebeenrunningitagain andagainafterIwasremovedmanytimes.Mykhokhais locatedonthefootpath." 11.4 Thesuitpropertybeingagovernmentlandand theplaintiffadmittedlynothavinganytehbazarilicenseor permission is therefore, otherwise not entitled for any injunction against SDMC/MCD/defendant no. 2. The suit propertybeinggovernmentlandandinfactafootpaththe plaintiffhasnorightwhatsoevertocarryonhisbusiness activity from there. He is unauthorizedly sitting on governmentland,heisatrespasserthereofandcannotclaim any injunction against the government/state/its instrumentalities.Reliancemaybeplacedonthelawlaid downin StateofJammu&KashmirVs.[ENTITY] [PRECEDENT] MCD/SDMC vide Mark F and he has paid the penalty [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 14/21 chargeswhichissufficientproofofhisillegalandunlawful activities.Infactitismockerythatplaintiffisrelyingupon thechallan,whichisinfactproofofhisillegal/unpermitted activity,tobasehisclaim. 11.5 The law is well settled that the relief of injunction is a discretionary relief and the person who claimsthesamehastoapproachthecourtwithcleanhands. Apersonwhoseeksequity,mustdoequityandthataperson whoseeksequitablereliefmustcomewithcleanhandsand act in a equitable and fair manner. The Court denies the relief to a suitor who is himself guilty of misconduct in respectofthematterincontroversy.Itiswellknownmaxim ofequitythat"Hewhocomesintoequitymustcomewith clean hands," or as otherwise expressed, "He that hath committedinequityshallnothaveequity".Reliancemaybe [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT]. 2001 [CASE NUMBER]. Therefore the [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 15/21 personwhohimselfisguiltyofawrongdoingormisconduct or has not approached the court with clean hands is not entitledtothediscretionaryreliefofinjunction.Inthecase at hand the plaintiff being an encroacher on government landcannotclaimthereliefofinjunctionasequitydoesnot lieinhisfavour. 11.6 The suit property is a government land, a footpath.Footpathsaremeantforpedestriansandcannotbe permittedtobeexclusivelyusedandinfactexploitedbyan individualtocarryonhisbusinessactivities.Therecannot beanyright,leaveapartfundamentalrighttocarryouta business on/from footpath/government land. As is visible fromphotographsEx.PW1/J1toJ6filedbytheplaintiffit's abigsetupwhichhehasputuponthefootpathandthe photographsestablishesbeyonddoubtthatitisanuisanceto thepublicatlarge.Motorcyclesofthepersonsvisitinghis shop/khokha can be easily seen parked in a haphazard manneraroundhisshop/khokha.Furthermorethekhokhais adjoining the metro station which can lead to serious securityissues.Footpathsandstreetsareprimarilymeantfor passage,ofthepedestriansandunregulatedactivityofthe plaintiffisundoubtedlyanobstructiontomovementonthe [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 16/21 streets.[PRECEDENT] dated 11.08.2015. 11.7 In Bombay Hawker's Union and Ors. v. BombayMunicipalCorporation (1985) 3SCC 520 ithas beenlaiddownthatnopersonhasarighttocarryonhisor her trade or business so as to cause nuisance or inconveniencetoothermemberofthepublic;streetsbytheir nomenclaturearetobeusedbythegeneralpublicandhave notbeenlaidtofacilitatethecarryingonofprofit,tradeor business. 11.8 InSh.[ENTITY].Chairman,[CASE NUMBER] ithasbeenheldbyHon'bleApexCourtasunder: "12.TherespondentreferredtothedecisionoftheApexCourt
in [PRECEDENT] 1 SCC490,whereinithasbeenheldasunder: "[PRECEDENT] therecommendationsmadebytheCommitteeconstituted pursuanttoanearlierjudgmentandobserved:
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 17/21 "10.Theaboveauthoritiesmakeitclearthatthehawkershave aright underArticle19(1)(g) oftheConstitutionofIndia.
Thisright,is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article19(6).Thushawking maynotbepermittedwhere, e.g.duetonarrownessofroad,free flow oftrafficor movement of pedestrians is hindered or where for security reasonsanareaisrequiredtobekeptfreeornearhospitals, places of worship, etc. There is no fundamental right underArticle21 tocarryonanyhawkingbusiness.There is alsonorighttodohawkingatanyparticularplace."
11.9 Infactthisisthereasonthattheplaintiffhas notsoughtanyreliefagainstSDMC/defendantno.2despite defendantno.2beingimpleadedasapartyanddespitethe plaintiffsownadmissionthatMCD/SDMC/defendantno.2 haschallanedhim,removedhisbelongings/goodsfromthe suitpropertytimeandagainaswellashaddemolishedhis khokhasometimeback.
11.10 Asfarasdefendantno.1isconcernedplaintiff ishisbrotherinlaw.Plaintiffhadclaimedthatdefendantno. 1hasbeenthreateninghimrepeatedlytoeithervacatethe suitpropertyorfacedireconsequences.Plaintiffprovedhis complaintsdated29.05.2014and04.06.2013giventoSHO PSKalkajiinthisregardasEx.PW1/OandPW1/P.The testimony of the plaintiff has remained unchallenged and unrebutted.Despitefilinghisappearanceandalsodespite filingtheWSwhereintallclaimsweremadebydefendant [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 18/21 no. 1 that he is the actual allottee of the suit property/shop/khokha, defendantno.1didnotpursuethe caseandwasultimatelyproceededexpartevideproceedings dated14.10.2014.Therefore,defendantno.1forreasonsbest knowntohim didnotrebutor dislodgetheclaim of the plaintiff or substantiate his own claims so made in the writtenstatement.Theclaimsmadeinthewrittenstatement remained bald. If indeed there was some merits in the claimsofdefendantno.1hewouldhavediligentlypursued thecaseinsteadofshyingawayfromthesame.
11.11 Therefore plaintiff's claim of being in possession of the suit property/khokha/shop could not be discreditedorcontradicted.InphotographsEx.PW1/Jto Ex. PW1/J6 plaintiff can be seen running his tea stall/khokhainquestion.
11.12 Infactitiswritlargefromthewrittenstatement ofdefendantno.2thatkhokha/shopinthenameandstyleof DeepakMandali.e.inthenameoftheplaintiffisbeingrun atthesuitproperty.
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 19/21 11.13 His being in possession of the suit property defendant no. 1 cannot dispossess or evict him from the sameotherwisethandueprocessoflaw.Thepossessionof the plaintiff who appears to be in possession of the suit propertysincethelastatleast34years(onthebasisofEx. PW1/B,Ex.PW1/Cetc.)ifnot11yearsasclaimedbyhim cannotbedisturbedbydefendantno.1.Ifindeeddefendant no.1hasanygrievanceshecanalwaystakerecoursetothe legalprocess/legalremediesavailabletohim. Howeverhe cannotbepermittedtotakelawinhishandsi.e.illegally dispossesstheplaintifffromthesuitproperty/shop/khoka.
11.14 Status of defendant no. 1 is different as of defendantno.2.Defendantno.1asdiscussedabovedidnot come forward to establish/prove his right qua the suit property. The land admittedly belongs to government, defendantno.2isoneoftheorgan/instrumentalitiesofthe government and therefore there cannot be any injunction against defendant no. 2. Further reliance may be placed upon the law laid down in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 20/21 Relief
12. Therefore in view of above discussion, defendantno.1isrestrainedfromillegallydispossessingthe plaintifffromthesuitpropertyi.e.shop/khokhameasuring 6' x 5' in the property bearing no. R16, Nehru Enclave, HansRajSethiMarg,MainRoadnearParasGroundGate No.1,Kalkaji,NewDelhi-110019.
12.1 Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to estoppingdefendantno.2frominitiatinganyactionagainst the plaintiff as the plaintiff being trespasser on the governmentland,unauthorizedoccupantofthesamecannot claim any injunction against the government/state or its instrumentalities.Theyareatabsolutelibertytoinitiateany actiontheydesirewithinfourcornersoflaw.
13. FilebeconsignedtoRecordRoom.
Announcedintheopencourt ([ENTITY]) on 23rd September 2016 SCJ/RC/South-East Saket Courts/New Delhi
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] anr. 21/21