( 1 ) THERE are two suits filed by two sets of persons touching the same property and seeking more or less : identical reliefs, though in a bit little different backdrop of events. Two applications in the two suits seeking similar reliefs have been heard analogously and are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) IN the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the length and the vehemence with which the matters have been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the parties require the facts being noticed in a little more details. On each and every point arising for decision, even at this preliminary stage of the suits, the parties and the learned counsel have been at divergence. The only point on which all of them have expressed consensus is that some of the issues arising for decision have farreaching implications and consequences of significance for the public at large.

( 3 ) ON 19. 11. 1994, ANZ Grindlays Bank, (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Bank, for short) has filed suit No. 2581/94 accompanied by anurgent application seeking ad interim injunction. It was a non working Saturday. Counsel for the plaintiff made a special mention, impressing upon the court the urgency involved, highlighting the irreparable injury which the plaintiff would suffer by sealing and/or demolition of the premises in its occupation, persuading the court to pass an exparte order of interim injunction at least for four days, the date of hearing after notice to the opposite party having been appointed as 23. 11. 1994.

( 4 ) THE Commissioner MCD, Smt. Usha Devi and M/s Aggarwal Developers Pvt Ltd the three have been impleaded as defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The suit premises are situated on plot No. M-l, NDSE II. There is a building with a basement and two and a half floors above. If the basement is to be counted as a floor, there are three-and-a-half floors in all.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff bank the ground floor and the basement of the building have been obtained by it on lease and possession secured w. e. f. 1. 5. 94, though the lease deed was registered with the Sub Registrar of Assurances on 6. 6. 94. The compleion certificate in respect of the building given on lease to the bank comprising of basement and the ground floor admeasuring the super area of 12404 sft was handed over to the plaintiff bank. (The completion certificate is not filed with the plaint ). The lease premises were being used for commercial purpose ever since 1961-62, as reflected by the inspection book of M. C. D. of the year 1961-62

( 6 ) ON 17. 11. 1994 some officials of MCD came to the Manager of the bank to tell him that certain portion of the leased premises was unauthorised and hence was liable to be demolished and sealed. No notice was served on the bank. The proposed action of the M. C. D. officials having been strongly resisted by the bank officials, the M. C. D. officials returned but repeating their threat to come again after arranging police help to translate into action their threat of sealing and demolition of the premises.

( 7 ) THE Bank has sought for the relief of perpetual injunction in its favour restraining the MCD Idefendant No. 1 from carrying out any demolition/sealing of the premises under the tenancy of the plaintiff.

( 8 ) THE grounds on which the relief is sought for by the plaintiffs are stated in para 10 of the plaint. Briefly summed up they are:-

(1) Because no notice either in respect of the sealing of the premises or in respect of proposed demolition was served on the plaintiff;

(2) Because the entire area of the locality is being used for commercial purposes; the defendant No. 1 cannot adopt a policy of pick and choose by proceeding against the plaintiff alone and not taking a similar action of restraining commercial activities of others in the area;

(3) Because no opportunity of hearing has been given to the plaintiff; the plaintiff has not even been told what is unauthorised user, or the unautho