( 1 ) SMT. RAM Dulari is the plaintiff. She claims to be the owner of property bearing municipal No. 33-C, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, which as per the plaint, comprised, of two shops, five rooms, two bath rooms, three kitchens, two W. C. s and one store on the ground floor, five rooms besides one bath room, two kitchens on the first floor and two looms, one kitchen, one WC, two store rooms besides water tank and a Verandah on the Barsati floor. She alleges that the entire building was constructed in the year 1956 and that on 10th and 11th October, 1975 the Delhi Development Authority illegallyand without authority of law demolished apart of the building. She claims that fearing further demolition she filed a civil suit in which, on October 19, 1975, the Delhi Development Authority was directed to maintain status quo. Her grievance is that despite that order the remaining portion of the building was demolished on November 4, 1975. She has thus instituted this suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,50,000. 00 as damages.

( 2 ) NEEDLESS to say, the Delhi Development Authority has contested the suit. It has neither admitted the plaintiff to be the owner of the suit property nor has it accepted the position that the building had been built in the year 1956. Rather, as per the defendant Authority its staff having detected construction work being carried on in the year 1971, a notice was issued under section 30 (1) of the Delhi Development Act to the plaintiff on 18th December, 1971 and as thereafter further unauthorised construction was reported on 18th January, 1972, yet another notice under section 30 (1) was served upon Rattan Chand Joshi, husband of the plaintiff. It is claimed that demolition order was passed on 7th March, 1972 and as on January 25, 1975 more construction was reported, this too led to issuance of a notice and its service upon the plaintiff and subsequent order of demolition. The passing of the order by the civil court on October 17, 1975 has, however, not been disputed by the Delhi Development Authority but it is claimed that the entire demolition work was carried out on 10th October, 1975 and 11th October, 1975 and that no portion was demolished on November 4, 1975. In short it is the case of the Delhi Development Authority that demolition was strictly in accordance with law and as such furnishes no cause of action to the plaintiff. It is further claimed that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time the same having not been instituted within six months of the accrual of cause of action as required under section 53 (B) (2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

( 3 ) IN the replication the case as set up by the plaintiff in the plaint has been reiterated.

( 4 ) THE pleadings of the parties led to the framing of the following issues:

1. Is the present suit barred by time as provided by and under section 53 (B) (2) of the Delhi Development Act ? 2. Was any valid notice under Section 53 (B) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 served upon the defendant No. 1 ? If not, what is its effect? OPP 3. Is the plaintiff owner of the disputed premises ? OPP 4. Was the disputed premises constructed prior to 1956 as alleged and if so what is its effect? OPP 5, Was the action of demolition by defendant No. l illegal, unauthorised and without jurisdiction as alleged by the plaintiff and if so what is its effect? OPP 6. Is the plaintiff entitled to damages and if so how much? OPP 7. Have Civil courts no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit ? OPD 8. Relief.

( 5 ) ISSUES No. 1,4 and 5 For the sake of convenience, I propose to take issues No. 1, 4 and 5 together. Since section 53-B of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) and more particularly its sub-section (2) formed a major slice of the arguments advanced, let me first reproduce the provision. It reads:

"53-B. Notice to be given of suits.-- (1) No suit shall be instituted against the Authority, or any member thereof, or any of its officers o