A mandatory injunction will not be granted if the plaintiff has an adequate remedy in damages, if it would cause irreparable injury to the defendant, if the defendant has not violated any legal right of the plaintiff, or if the plaintiff has not suffered any irreparable injury.

( 1 ) WORLD Trade Centre Welfare Society appellant/plaintiff filed this appeal, thereby challenging the order dated 26. 6. 1991 ofsatpal, J. vide which the interim stay granted on 18-3-1991 in IA. 2538/min Suit No. 900/91 was vacated.

( 2 ) WORLD Trade Centre Welfare Society is a Society registered underthe Societies Registration Act and was formed by most of the occupantsof the building known as World Trade Centre, situated at Barakhamba Lane,new Delhi. There are 62 members of the plaintiff who have been allotteddifferent spaces/portions in the aforesaid premises as per the detailsmentioned in Schedule a to the plaint. The plaintiff had filed a suit fordeclaration, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and rendition ofaccount against M/s. Bharat Hotels Limited, a Company incorporatedunder the Indian Companies Act, defendant/respondent No. 1 (hareinafterreferred to as defendant No. . 1), M/s. Jagjit Cotton Textiles Limited, acompany incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, defendant/respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 2) and New Delhimunicipal Committee defendant/respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred toas defendant No. 3 ). A number of prayers were made in the suit, butsuffice it to refer to the Clause (d), (e), (g) and (i) of Para 18 of the plaint,which reads as under :-D Permanent Injunction thereby restraining the defendant No. 1and defendant No. 2 through its agents, employees, representatives etc. etc. from making any unauthorised additions andalterations in the premises and thereby changing the basicplan of the premises and not to encroach upon the commonareas. E. Mandatory Injunction, thereby directing the defendant No. 3to demolish the unauthorised construction already raised bydefendant Nos. 1 and 2 and restore the premises in theiroriginal position and to keep a check upon the constructionactivities of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in future and not toallow them to construct in contravention to the sanctioned andapproved plans. G. Mandatory Injunction, thereby directing the defendant No. 1to restore the fire escape facility to the occupants and membersof the plaintiff society on the ground floor plan which has beenclosed by them. 1. Mandatory Injunction, thereby directing the defendant No. 3to demolish the unauthorised construction already raised bydefendant No. 1 and to restore the premises in their originalposition as per the basic sanctioned plan.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the averments made in the suit have been that thedefendant No. 1 was allotted a plot of land measuring about 6. 0485 acresapproximately at commercial complex. Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi, onlease for a period of 99 years with effect from 11. 3. 1981 by the defendantno. 3, the Deed of Licence in this regard was, however, executed on22. 4. 1982. A Commercial Complex known as World Trade Centre wasconstructed by defendant No. 1, who, by virtue of Clause 29 of the Licencedeed was empowered to create a Sub-Licence with regard to the offices,shops and show rooms constructed in the said building. The defendantno. 1 had issued a brochure highlighting the various salient features of theproject and giving details of the facilities which were to be made availableto its occupants. A number of advertisements had also been issued in thenewspapers in this regard. Different persons approached the defendantno. 1 and took offices, show-rooms and shops as per their requirementsfrom the defendant No. 1 regarding which Sub-Licence Agreements wereexecuted. Further averments made in the plaint have been that the defendant No. 1 assured the members of the plaintiff society that they would beproviding various services and conveniences and that Clause No. (4) underthe head main Features of the Project in the brochure mentioned that atwo-level parking garage with a total capacity of 700 cars with a directdrop-off entry to the enclosed shopping/office artium would be provided. There was a grievance even with regard to the action of t