SAROJAMMA Vs. SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these three appeals are preferred against a common order dated 7-4-1993 passed by the vii additional city civil judge, Bangalore in 0,s. No. 1869 of 1993 on i.a. nos. I, iii and v Respectively. M.f.a. No. 821 of 1993 is directed against the order passed on i.a. No. I, m.fa. No. 820 of 1993 is directed against the order passed on i a. No. Iii and m.fa. (fr) No. 902 of 1993 is directed against the order passed on La. No. V. All These Appeals are preferred by the defendants in the aforesaid suit.

(2.) since common questions of facts are involved in all these three appeals and with the consent of the learned counsels appearing on either side, all these three appeals have been taken up for final disposal together.

(3.) the facts relevant for the disposal of these three appeals, briefly stated, are as under: plaintiff-respondent filed o.s. No. 1869 of 1993 against the defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants) praying for a judgment and decree for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the schedule premises and from carrying on minor repairs to the schedule premises at his cost, during the continuance of the tenancy of the premises. Among other things, plaintiff has, in the course of his plaint, alleged that he is a tenant in respect of the schedule premises, consisting of shop premises in the front portion and the godown in the rear portion. According to him, he has been carrying on the business of sales of glass and plywood sheets since 1975 in the schedule premises and that he has earned goodwill and reputation in the whole of Karnataka state, in respect of his business. Defendants 1 and 2 are the purchasers of the premises in question from defendant 3, who was one of the owners of the premises. According to the plaintiff, defendants were not happy with the plaintiff and they were thinking in terms of exercising him. With that end in view, they are preventing the plaintiff from carrying on even minor repairs, like closing the holes in the roof. It is the version of the plaintiff that defendants have removed the roof of the first floor and damaged the roof of the ground floor while removing the roof of the first floor, with the result, the rain water and the drainage water are leaking through the holes in the ceiling of the godown and the shop premises and are damaging the plywood sheets. According to the plaintiff, he suffered a damage of nearly two lakhs rupees. It is the case of the plaintiff that as a lawful tenant of the premises in question ever since 1975 he is entitled to effect repairs at his own cost and the defendants have no right to prevent him from lawfully carrying on the repairs and from enjoying the property peacefully. However, defendants, according to him, are not allowing him to live in peace. On these allegations, in substance, he prayed for the reliefs referred to earlier.