( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge in a suit filed by respondent No. 1 whereby the appellants were restrained from putting the property in question to any use other than residential purpose till the disposal of the suit. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are :-

PLAINTIFF/respondent No. 1 is the owner of residential premises bearing No. 78, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi. The adjacent plot of land bearing No. 79 was purchased by the appellants and they constructed a building thereon after allegedly getting the building plans sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Respondent No. 1, being the immediate neighbour of the appellant, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from putting the property bearing No. 79, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi to any non-residential use or from doing any commercial activity from the said premises on the allegations that the appellants were intending to put the premises to commercial use which would affect the rights of the plaintiff besides the same being in violation of the zonal and master plan of Delhi. Along with the suit, an application for ad-interim injunction was also filed for restraining the appellants from putting the property to non-residential use or from doing any commercial activity till the disposal of the suit.

( 2 ) IN the written statement and reply to the application filed by the defendants/appellants 1 and 2, it was stated that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit and that he had concealed and suppressed material facts from the Court thereby disentitling him to the grant of any equitable relief by the Court. It was alleged that the appellants had themselves raised unauthorised construction in their property bearing No. 78 and the appellants had filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against him for restraining him from raising any unauthorised construction and for directing him to demolish the unauthorised construction raised on plot No. 78. In the said suit, this Court had directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to take action in accordance with law and the Corporation was further directed to submit a report regarding the action taken by it. In furtherance to the said directions, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a status report stating, inter alia, that respondent No. 1/plaintiff had raised certain unauthorised construction in his property. It is submitted in the written statement that the present suit was a counter blast to the suit filed by the appellants against the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. It is also stated in the written statement that the suit was barred by the provisions of Sections 41 (f) (h) (j) of the Specific Relief Act. It was denied in the written statement that the appellants were about to put the property to commercial use in contravention and violation of the Zonal and Master Plan. It was stated that the construction raised on plot No. 79 was strictly in accordance with the Zonal and Master Plan and in accordance with the building bye-laws and the plans sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It was submitted that respondent No. 1 had no cause of action to file the suit and the plaint was liable to be rejected.

( 3 ) ON the aforesaid pleas, the trial Court came to a prima-facie finding that in case of a nuisance, the immediate neighbour of the property has locus standi to file the suit so as to stop the nuisance which in any manner inconvenience him in the user of his own property. It was observed by the trial Court that as per the case set up by the plaintiff, the appellants were threatening to carry out commercial activities from the property which was intended to be residential not only in the lay out plan of the colony but under the Master Plan as well; that under Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, no one can violate the Master Plan and even if the property is free hold, the allottee under