Hanit Mangat v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And ORS.
$~14 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5738/2018 HANIT MANGAT ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr Yuvraj Singh and Mr Mizan Siddiqui, Advocates.
versus EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.
..... Respondents Through:
Ms Ayushi Chaudhary and Ms Nidhi Raman, Advocates for R-2 to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R
% 31.07.2019 1.
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent nos.1 to 4 take appropriate steps against the illegal occupant(s) of the rented premises bearing no. 6, Mile Post, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi - 110032 (hereafter 'the Property'), and restrain the occupant(s) from carrying on any illegal activities as mentioned in the petition.
2.
The petitioner is a senior citizen and claims that he has inherited the Property. He states that a shop in the Property were let out earlier by the petitioner's late father to one Shri Mohammad Khalid Azmi, S/o Shri Mohammad Khalil. It is claimed that the said shop is now being occupied by some other persons illegally. It is alleged that the said occupants are also carrying out unauthorized extension and further also defecating in the open
area. It is further alleged that minor children are employed at the shop and the same is being used for running a printing press. 3.
Notice in the said petition was issued and a status report has been filed by the concerned SHO. It is stated that in the report that the Property consists of four sheds, three of them were found locked and only one of them was being used. It is stated that there were some workers in the that shed and were carrying on the work of book binding. One Shri Abdul Javed was working in the said premises and on further inquiries, he claimed that he had taken the said shed on rent.
4.
It is apparent from the above that the disputes between the petitioner and the occupants of the property in question are in the nature of a private dispute. In this view, this Court does not consider it apposite to issue further orders in this petition.
The same is disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to institute an appropriate action, if so advised. VIBHU BAKHRU, J JULY 31, 2019 MK