Back
High Court Of Delhi
ONKAR NATH - Appellant
Versus
RAM NATH - Respondent
C.R.P. 344 of 1984
Decided On : 01/17/1985
BUILDING BYE-LAWS - UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION - INJUNCTION - NEIGHBOR'S RIGHT TO SEEK RELIEF - SETBACKS - MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS - REPAIRS - INTERPRETATION - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 41(J) - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, owner of a three-storeyed house, filed a suit seeking injunction against defendants, owners of an adjoining plot, to restrain them from raising unauthorized construction without obtaining necessary sanction from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Plaintiff alleged that defendants' intended construction would block windows of his house, affecting light and air, and would be in violation of building bye-laws requiring front and rear setbacks.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in his favor. It found that the defendants intended to raise unauthorized construction without obtaining the necessary permits or sanctions from the concerned authorities. The court also held that the plaintiff had a right to seek relief against the defendants for raising unauthorized construction contrary to the building bye-laws, as it would affect his rights as a neighbor.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had a prima facie case for injunction against the defendants from raising unauthorized construction? 2. Whether the plaintiff had a right to seek relief against the defendants for raising unauthorized construction contrary to the building bye-laws? 3. Whether the defendants were required to leave front and rear setbacks as per the building bye-laws?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had a prima facie case for injunction as he had demonstrated that the defendants intended to raise unauthorized construction without obtaining the necessary permits or sanctions from the concerned authorities. 2. The court held that the plaintiff had a right to seek relief against the defendants for raising unauthorized construction contrary to the building bye-laws, as it would affect his rights as a neighbor. The court relied on precedents establishing that a neighbor has a legal right to seek injunction against unauthorized construction that materially affects their property or enjoyment thereof. 3. The court held that the defendants were required to leave front and rear setbacks as per the building bye-laws, as these requirements were mandatory under the applicable bye-laws.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's revision petition, set aside the impugned orders of the lower courts, and granted an injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the disputed plot without obtaining the necessary permit or sanction from the concerned authorities till the decision of the suit.
Key Points: - The plaintiff, as neighbor, has a right to seek injunction for unauthorized construction that affects light, air, or enjoyment of his property (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Front and rear setbacks are mandatory requirements under the Building Bye-laws 1983, and leaving setbacks is required to be adhered to, affecting neighbor rights (!) (!) (!) . - The court granted injunction restraining unauthorized construction until final decision, indicating the neighbor's relief is permissible under the applicable bye-laws and statutory framework [p_Final] (!) . - The Building Bye-laws require obtaining permits; alterations and specific repairs have defined limitations, with certain works exempt from permits under Bye-law 6.4, affecting what constitutes unauthorized construction (!) . - The role of municipal authorities is to sanction construction; failure to obtain sanction is contrary to bye-laws and affects neighboring rights; the court may intervene by injunction (!) (!) (!) (!) .
( 1 ) ORDER:- This revision by the plaintiff under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. is directed against the judgment and order dt. 23rd March, 1984 of the Additional District Judge confirming the order dt. 29th Nov. 1982 of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dismissing his application under O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 of the Civil P. C.
( 2 ) THE brief facts as alleged are that the plaintiff is the owner of a three-storeyed house-bearing Municipal No. 4647/1 situated at 21 Darya Ganj, New Delhi and he has been residing on the first and second floors that the house has been in existence for the last 23 years and there have been three windows marked as A, B and C in the plan on the Eastern side of the first floor which are the only source of light and air to the living room and the dining-room of the plaintiff, that under the Building Bye-laws, no construction can be raised back to back and a person who wants to construct a building on an open plot of land is bound to leave at least 10 feet rear set back, and similarly, a front set back. The plaintiff alleges that defendants are in possession of an open plot of land situated on the East of his property marked x in the plan filed with the plaint; that defendants 1 to 3 on 20th Aug. 1982 collected building material with a view to raise unauthorised construction; that he came to know of their intention and warned them not to raise any unauthorised constructions without obtaining sanction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The defendants however started raising unauthorised construction and the matter was reported to the police. The defendants were directed not to raise any unauthorised construction. It is alleged that the defendants again tried to raise unauthorised construction on 23rd Aug, 1982 and the matter was again reported to the police by residents and the defendants were again warned not to raise any unauthorised construction. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are adamant to raise unauthorised construction contrary to the Building Bye-laws without obtaining the requisite sanction from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is further alleged that defendant 1 is an ex-employee, defendant 2 is an employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and they have influence on the officials of the Corporation and therefore, they are adamant to raise unauthorised construction in connivance with the officers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, that defendants 1 to 3 have no right to raise any unauthorised construction and defendant 4, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is bound to take suitable action for the unauthorised construction contrary to the Building Bye-laws. The plaintiff further alleges that if defendants 1 to 3 are allowed to raise construction in contravention of the Building Bye-laws, his rights would be seriously affected as the unauthorised constructions without leaving front and rear set back will not only contravene the Building Bye-Laws but shall also seriously affect his rights as the light and the air which the plaintiff has been enjoying will be seriously affected and that it would cause nuisance; that it will materially affect his comfort; that the provisions for leaving front and rear set back have been made for the benefit of the neighbours, that the Municipal Corporation has no right to allow the construction without the front and rear set back contrary to Building Bye-Laws. On these grounds, the plaintiff prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from raising any unauthorised construction without obtaining necessary sanction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on the plot of land situated on the East of his property, marked x in the plan annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff has further prayed for an injunction against defendant 4 restraining them from according permission or sanction to the defendants 1 to 3 in contravention of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and Bye-laws framed thereunder. Along with the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
