Krishan Kumar Garg v. Ram Niwas Verma

Delhi High Court · 16 Apr 2015 · 2015:DHC:10812
Mukta Gupta
CM(M)80/2015 and CM(M)81/2015
2015:DHC:10812
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions seeking permission to repair tin sheds encroaching upon public footpaths and roads pending appeals against possession decrees.

Full Text
Translation output
1#&2#$~ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M)80/2015 and CM No.1567/2015(Stay)
KRISHAN KUMAR GARG Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manish Vats and Mr.R.S.Vats, Advocates.
VERSUS
RAM NIWAS VERMA Respondent
Through: Mr.J.S.Rawat,Advocate.
CM(M)81/2015 and CM No.1569/2015(Stay)
PRADEEP KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manish Vats and Mr.R.S.Vats, Advocates.
VERSUS
RAM NIWAS VERMA Respondent
Through: Mr.J.S.Rawat,Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
16.04.2015
ORDER

1. The Petitioners filed applications in two petitions being RCA Nos. 45/2014 and 46/2014 with regard to repairing of the tin shed in the two shops in their possession. The said applications were dismissed vide identical orders dated 10^^ October,2014.

2. Two suits for possession were filed by the Respondent against the Petitioners with respect to the shops at the ground floor of the property CM(M)80/2015and CM(M)81/2015 Page 1 of[2] 2015:DHC:10812 No.ll[4], K-12/21/1 and 21/2 situated in the revenue estate of village Nangloi, Delhi. The said suits were decreed against the Petitioners. The decrees were challenged in appeals. Pending the appeals,applications were filed under Section 151 CPC with regard to the repair ofthe tin shed or in the alternative to allow thePetitionersto repair/replace the same.

3. In the reply filed by the Respondent it was pointed out that the Petitioners have been placing goods on the road two-three ft. outside the shop and the tin shed is even 4-5 ft outside the shop,around I-IV^ ft beyond the footpath.

4. The tin sheds as shown in the photographs are abutting on the road extending beyond the suit property. The case ofthe Petitioners is that due to the condition ofthe tin shed the rain water,sun light falls in the shop which causes inconvenience. A perusal ofthe photographs shows that the purpose of putting the tin shed is to encroach on the footpath which is not permissible and hence I find no merit in the petitions. The petition and applications are dismissed.