VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2019 › High Court of Delhi

Vinod Kumar Kedia v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
21 May 2019
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
CS(OS) 1279/2009

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J MAY 21, 2019 'pp'

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21st May, 2019 + CS(OS) 1279/2009 VINOD KUMAR KEDIA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Adv. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND OTHERS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Ajay Arora and Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for D-1. AND + CS(OS) 1443/2009 VINOD KUMAR KEDIA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Adv. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND OTHERS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Ajay Arora and Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for D-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The plaintiff has instituted CS(OS) No.1279/2009 against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and its officials for recovery of Rs.18,00,000/- along with interest, pleading that (i) the plaintiff is the owner of Property No.5766, Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi having purchased the same vide Sale Deed dated 19th November, 1998; (ii) the property was an old property constructed in 1950 and was in occupation of the tenants from whom the plaintiff got the property vacated; (iii) because the property was in urgent need of repairs, the plaintiff, to avoid any mishap and to render the property usable, submitted an application dated 2nd May, 2008 to the defendant MCD intimating his intention to carry out repairs therein and called upon the officials of the defendant MCD to visit and inspect the property; (iv) the plaintiff, on visiting the office of the defendant MCD was informed that he was entitled to carry out the works permitted in Clause 6.4.1 of the Unified Building Bye-Laws, 1983 as applicable to Delhi, without seeking any permission; (v) the plaintiff accordingly commenced the work of repairs; (vi) the officials of the defendant MCD visited the property on 30th May, 2018 and without serving any show-cause notice or demolition order punctured/demolished the roof of the ground, first and second floors of the property; (vii) the defendant MCD and its officials, in doing so acted illegally, in violation of the law; (viii) the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs.12,00,000/- towards cost of re-laying of the roofs of the ground, first and second floors and ancillary repairs and suffered mental agony, torture and humiliation valued at Rs.6,00,000/-; and, (ix) the plaintiff is also entitled to interest on the said amount at 18% per annum. Hence the suit for recovery of Rs.18,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum for the period w.e.f. 31st May, 2008 to 14th May, 2009. 2. CS(OS) No.1443/2009 has been filed by the plaintiff against the MCD and its officials for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs.6,37,50,000/- for the period w.e.f. 31st May, 2008 to 30th July, 2009 along with future damages w.e.f. 31st July, 2009 at Rs.1,50,000/- per day, till the property is restored by the defendant MCD in the position in which it was prior to 30th May, 2008. The plaintiff, in the plaint in the said suit has additionally pleaded, that (i) though the plaintiff in the earlier suit had sought recovery of Rs.12,00,000/- towards cost of re-laying of the roofs but had not undertaken the said work as no permission therefor had been granted; (ii) however vide order dated 6th August, 2008 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4472/2008, the plaintiff had been permitted to put a temporary fibre glass covering where the roof was punctured, to avoid seepage of water in other parts of the property; however the plaintiff did not put the said fibre glass covering also because the same was not enough to save the property from being damaged from rains, storm etc.; and, (iii) a sum of Rs.6,37,50,000 /- is due from the defendant MCD to the plaintiff as damages/compensation for depriving the plaintiff of the use and enjoyment of the property from 31st May, 2008 to 30th July, 2009, besides the amount of Rs.18,00,000/- claimed in CS(OS) 1279/2009; the plaintiff is also entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from 31st July, 2009 till the property is restored to original position. 3. Needless to state that the defendant MCD and its officials contes

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.