AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manmohan Singh, J.—This order shall dispose of the application being IA No. 10303/2007 filed by the plaintiff u/s 151 CPC for removal of the Administrator and for appointment of new Administrator in his place.
The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale of the suit premises known as ''Rishimookh'', 85-A, Panchkuiyan Road, New Delhi vide agreement dated 27th July 1987 and 11th January, 1988, and for possession and damages.
Summons were issued in the present suit on 30th April, 1991 for 7th August, 1991. Mr. R.D. Verma, (Retd.) Deputy Registrar of this Court was appointed as Administrator by this Court vide order dated 30th March, 1993 for the maintenance of lift and common areas in the suit property.
In the application, the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff is in possession and occupation of more than 80% of the suit property and only a small portion is with the defendant at the ground floor and at the basement. It is averred in the plaint that the generating set provided in the building is of 44 kv which caters to only the common areas such as stair case, lift and basement. There is no electricity supply to the portion of the plaintiff in the building which is more than 80% of the total area. The plaintiff, therefore, wants to install a new generating set in the building. However, the defendant No. 1 objected to installation of a new generating set by the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore filed an application being IA No. 12881/2006 for direction to the defendants not to obstruct the plaintiff in installation of the generating set. This Court vide order dated 16th January, 2007 passed the following order:
In view of the above disputes and submissions on behalf of the parties, without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions, the plaintiff is given liberty to approach Mr. R.D. Verma, Joint Registrar, Retd. for installation of the generator who shall ensure that the generator, if any, which is to be installed by the plaintiff, is installed within the area which is the subject matter of the agreements dated 26th July, 1988 and 11th January, 1989 and complies with the parameters statutorily set for the purpose including those dealing with air and noise pollution.
It is alleged in the present application that the plaintiff has not been able to install the generating set since the Administrator is biased towards the plaintiff. The following acts and omissions on the part of the Administrator has been alleged by the plaintiff:
i. There is a jet pump installed at the scheduled premises which was repaired for Rs. 12000/-, however, the Administrator got it checked by some mechanic who quoted Rs. 30000/-. Thus the Administrator acted without due care and caution.
ii. The Administrator has appointed the security guard as well as a part time clerk without even taking consent of the plaintiff.
iii. The Administrator unauthorizedly allowed families of two electricians to reside in the premises with ulterior motive.
iv. Despite the objections raised by the plaintiff, the Administrator insisted and appointed Mr. Prem Narain as security guard who is the brother of one of the two electricians.
v. Families of the electricians are allowed by the Administrator to misuse the common area and facilities such as lift, toilet etc.
vi. No action has been taken with regard to written complaint from the plaintiff about parking of trucks by the defendant No. 1 in the parking area.
vii. No proper maintenance is being done about toilet in the ground floor.
viii. The Administrator is taking no action against defendant No. 1 for illegally taking electric supply in his area from the gen-set.
It is further urged that despite various requests and reminders both in writing and verbal from the plaintiff, the Administrator has not taken any effective steps to set right deficiencies pointed out by him. The inaction on the part of the Administrator for proper maintenance/services is causing tremendous inconvenience in day to day operation of the business. It is further urged that the Administrator is working against the interest of the plaintiff, taking unilateral decisions and is exceeding the authority granted to him by this Court vide order dated 30th March, 1993. The plaintiff, thus, prayed for appointment of a new Administrator in place of the appointed Administrator.
The defendant No. 1 objected to the appointment of new Administrator contending that the plaintiff had given to the Administrator a forged letter purported to have been issued by the NDMC granting permission to the plaintiff to install a generator set in the suit property. An FIR u/s 420/468/471 IPC has also been lodged by the NDMC with the Mandir Marg Police Station against the plaintiff and the said case is under investigation.
The defendant admitted that he gave a no objection to the installation of generator set by the plaintiff as recorded in the order dated 16th January, 2007.
It is submitted that regular meetings are called by the Administrator with the nominee of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 wherein the issues with respect to the maintenance, security, upkeep etc. of the building and its facilities are discussed and decided. Minutes of the meetings/decisions are recorded in writing and are duly signed by the Administrator and the nominee of the plaintiff. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the Administrator had been taking unilateral decisions is factually incorrect. The defendant denied the biasness on the part of the Administrator against the plaintiff or that the Administrator has ever exceeded his jurisdiction and/or created hurdles for the plaintiff.
In the rejoinder, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant has put pressure upon the NDMC officials and the executive engineer, Mr. V.K. Pandey who granted the permission and even requested Mr. Sanjeev Mishra, the Assistant Manager of the plaintiff company to withdraw the permission letter. When the plaintiff refused to give back the permission letter, the false story of forgery has been made in the FIR by the NDMC and defendant. It is stated that the plaintiff applied for installation of the generating set by due procedures.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and it appears from the pleadings of IA No. 10303/2007 as well as the submissions of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has made allegations against the Administrator and on the other hand the defendant has completely denied the allegations made by the plaintiff against the Administrator. There are two totally different versions against each other by the parties, hence, in the absence of evidence of the parties in respect of the allegations made against the Administrator, it is not possible to assess on the basis of the pleadings, who is wrong and which party is making correct statement.
Considering the overall circumstances of the matter that the present suit was filed in 1991, the issues were framed on 25th January, 1994 and the plaintiff has already completed its evidence and at this stage cross examination of DW-2 is to be conducted. Under these circumstances, it appears that the suit is almost at the final stage and, therefore, it will be appropriate that at this stage without going to the merits of the application made by the plaintiff for removal of Administrator, the suit proceedings are expedited, which is almost at the final stage.
It is, therefore, directed that the matter be listed before the Joint Registrar on 17th August, 2009 with the direction to complete the evidence of the defendant within a period of four months and thereafter the matter shall be listed before the Court for final hearing on 21st December, 2009.
As regards the Administrator is concerned, the present Administrator shall continue his work till 31st December, 2009 and in case the matter is not finally disposed of by that time, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to file fresh application for appointment of a new Administrator.
With these directions, the application stands disposed of.