GUL H JETHANI Vs. RAVINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent, and mandatory injunction inter alia, praying for orders restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their agents and servants from using the ground floor of G-8, N.D.S.C. Part-11, New Delhi for commercial purpose and for running a Bar-Be-Que business in this flat and for further restraint orders against these defendants from using the Tandoors in any portion of the ground floor flat including kitchen or balcony. Although orders for ceiling of the property being used by the defendants was also prayed for in the plaint, ad interim orders were confined to the first two reliefs indicated above.

(2.) A Local Commissioner Ms. Shalini Kumar was appointed on 14.2.1998. In her report she recorded that she found two big Tandoors together with some coal and wood being used or lighting the Tandoors, in the open verandah. She has further reported that the size of the Tandoors was such that prima facie they could not possibly have been used for domestic purposes only. In her view the premises was being used for commercial purposes. It has been further recorded that on questioning, Mrs. Prem Want Singh, defendant No. I had admitted that she had been carrying out commercial activity in the said premises. The Local Commissioner was of the opinion that at the time of her inspection no commercial activity was being carried out in the said premises.

(3.) Subsequently Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj was appointed as a Local Commissioner pursuant to orders dated 23.10.1998. He has stated that he reached the premises at 7.15 p.m. and carried out the inspection in the presence of the brother of defendant No. 2 and also took photographs. The report further states that when the Local Commissioner was coming out of the premises he was threatened and was confined by the son of defendant No. 2 who demanded the return of the camera reel. He was released only after the SHO, Defence Colony, arrived at the spot. Mr. Bhardwaj has further reported that the camera reel was snatched and destroyed by defendant No. 2. He left only at 10.45 p.m. Objections to the last report have been filed.