Dentist had obtained orders to use toilet from High Court

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 9

The dentist, in the midst of a row for allegedly focussing a CCTV camera on the washroom of an adjoining store, had obtained orders to use the toilet from the Punjab and Haryana High Court just more than a month ago.

Dr Dhavneet Singh had initially moved the trial court seeking injunction against defendant Narinder Pal Singh on the issue of using toilet facility allegedly available to a property purchased by him. The defendant’s stand was toilet facility could not be extended to Dr Dhavneet Singh. The court was told that the defendant was a tenant in an adjoining property, but it was later purchased by him.

The defendant’s case was that he was purchaser of 23.5 per cent share, which included the portion where the toilet existed. Dr Dhavneet was the purchaser of 16.5 per cent share. He had the right to use the toilet only when he was a tenant. Once he had purchased the property, including the toilet, the facility could not be extended to Dr Dhavneet Singh.

Appearing before the High Court, Dr Dhavneet Singh’s counsel Avnish Mittal had pointed out that the defendant had also been a witness in the rent deed executed before his purchase. It specifically spelt out the petitioner’s right to use the toilet as well. The defendant’s sale deed did not refer to the toilet. As such, he could not claim a right, which his document did not provide.

The defendants, on the other hand, claimed that the vendors were members of the same family. He denied that petitioner Dr Dhavneet Singh and respondent Narinder Pal Singh enjoyed the facilities of the toilet when they both were tenants. After the purchase, the respective rights stood determined under the sale deeds and Dr Dhavneet Singh could not ask for larger right.

Taking up the matter, Justice Kannan on April 21 had asserted: “I will find the toilet as a necessary facility and not a comfort. There is an issue of whether the toilet was also made a subject of sale and whether the defendant whose document does not make a reference of the toilet but would rely on an agreement to refer to a toilet as being included, it would require evidence to be brought at the trial.

“Prima facie, I will find the hardship that would be caused to deny the plaintiff the benefit of what he enjoyed as a tenant to be immense and hence the facility must continue and the balance of convenience shall be in the favour of the plaintiff to provide for the relief in the manner the trial court did….”