S.S.SODHI,J. - (1.) A raging now amongst neighbours over the construction of a basement is what brings them to Court here.
(2.) THE petitioner-Dr. L.R. Sardana owns plot 840 in the Urban Estate, Karnal where he has constructed his house, while his neighbour, the respondent-Jaswant Rai Kalra, the owner of the adjoining plot 841 is now in the midst of construction of his house thereon. The building plan, as sanctioned by the competent authority provides for the construction of a basement and this is what has become the bone of contention between them. The plea of the petitioner is that the construction of the basement would weaken the structure of his house and cause irreparable damage to it. He thus seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from making it. The present situation at the site, as per the report of Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate the Local Commissioner appointed by this Court is as under :- "In the basement of the premises under construction, the portion of the common wall and the roof of the basement were plastered with cement whereas the other walls of the basement and its flooring were unplastered. On the top portion, that is, ground floor only walls had been erected and only loose shuttering with gaps existed on the roof. The roof has not been laid as yet". It will be seen that the basement has already been constructed, the roof there of laid and what is more, the walls of the ground floor have also been erected.
(3.) A reference to the material on record would show that when the matter was before the lower appellate court Mr. K.K. Garg, Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R) Karnal was appointed Local Commissioner to ascertain the factual position at the site. In his report of May 5, 1990, he had adverted to some cracks in the walls of the house of Dr. Sardana, but was categoric in saying that none of these cracks was due to the construction of the basement by the respondent Mr. Kalra. He, however, recommended that the retaining wall be structurally designed and strengthened, as in his opinion, unless this was done, it was likely to endanger the safety of both the houses. On receiving this report the lower appellate court by its order of May 19, 1990 directed that this should be done and that too under the supervision of the Local Commissioner, Mr. K.K. Garg. The subsequent report of Mr. Garg of June 2, 1990 shows that the needful was in fact done. It was thereafter that the temporary injunction granted to the petitioner Dr. Sardana by the trial Court, was vacated. As a matter of abundant caution, the respondent Mr. Kalra was further directed to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with an undertaking contained therein to the effect that if any damage is caused to the building of the petitioner Dr. Sardana, by the construction of his house he would compensate him for all such damage. This direction too has been duly complied with.;