September 24, 2018:
Self-serving averments cannot prove any factum of any illegal construction by the Neighbours once they are made in accordance with the sanctioned plan and deviations.
Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta of Delhi High Court heard a Regular First Appeal against Judgement of Trial Court in a Suit seeking the relief of damages of Rs.10 lakhs against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and his neighbour on the cause of action that illegal constructions have been made by the respondent on her plot alongwith the builder.
Trial court has dismissed the suit by inter alia holding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove any damages caused to his property, and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner of plot no.C-68, East of Kailash, New Delhi. As per the plaintiff, the respondents, in connivance with the respondent municipal corporation, built a basement and structure in plot no. C-67, East of Kailash, New Delhi, in gross violation of the building Bye Laws.
The appellant/plaintiff took a plea that respondents did not take adequate fire precautions as required under the Bye Laws and also did not make the basement water proof. They are also alleged to have built a verandah or a raised platform in violation of the building Bye Laws, therefore taking away the privacy of the appellant/plaintiff. It was pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that the structure constructed by the respondents was highly dangerous and there is a threat to the appellant's/plaintiff's building as construction of respondents was adjoining to the house of the appellant/plaintiff.
After hearing both the sides Justice Valmiki Mehta HC Bench came to a conclusion that the suit was filed in 1995 and was decided in 2016 after 21 long years.
The delay was caused mostly on account of the appellant/plaintiff filing some or the other applications.
The appellant/plaintiff who appeared in person and argued his case, that he is engaged in around 36 litigations with his neighbours. The appellant/plaintiff also admitted that he threatened to commit immolation before the Chief Justice of this Court at one point of time.
Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta concluded that-
''In my opinion has been rightly decided by the trial court against the appellant/plaintiff since the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove any damage to his property or any loss caused to his property because no other evidence has been led besides the self serving statement of the appellant/plaintiff. The trial court has held that the allegation that construction carried out by the respondents no. 1 and 2/defendants no. 1 and 2 within their premises was likely to cause damage to the property of the appellant/plaintiff by the slightest tremor of the earthquake and rainfall is misconceived because though the suit was filed on 22.05.1995, since then, Delhi has experienced a number of earthquakes but the appellant’s/plaintiff’s property is still standing.''
Litigious Neighbour Can Not Harass Residents for Minor Deviations in Construction High Court Read Judgement... by Latest Laws Team on Scribd
Picture Source :
