“26. To sum up the aforesaid discussion, it prima facie appears that the respondents/plaintiffs are the owners and in occupation of the suit property No. E-40 & 41 and their claim that they have been in possession of the roof/open terrace cannot be said to be wrong on facts and in law. Learned ADJ has rightly found that the appellants/defendants by their own admission at one place have asserted that the user of the roof/open terrace has been permissive with the consent of its owner Mr. Y.N. Gupta, and at this stage of the matter, there is not an iota of material to show that there has been any open and hostile declaration by the appellants/defendants to claim ownership of the roof/open terrace over the suit property by way of adverse possession and to the total exclusion of the respondents/plaintiffs. Undoubtedly, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and they have now received approval from the NDMC for carrying out repairs and renovation vide letter dated 11.09.2023, which deadline is expiring by 11.03.2024. No irreparable loss or damage shall be caused to the appellants/defendants in case the respondents/ plaintiffs are allowed
