A K JAIN Vs. HARMEET SINGH BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of I.As. 6616/96 & 7503/ 96 both filed under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, CPC by the plaintiffs.

(2.) Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, inter alia, alleging that under a lease agreement dated 31st May, 1980 three bed rooms with attached bath, one side room, kitchen and one side servant quarter on the garage of house No. D-1059, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, were let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,300/- exclusive of electricity and water charges with effect from 1st June, 1980 for a period of three years by Bakshi Samsher Singh to Akesh Kumar Jain, plaintiff No. 1 and K.C. Jain passed away in December, 1984 and upon his death his tenancy rights devolved on plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4. Sometime in 1985-86 Bakshi Samsher Singh who was residing with his family on the ground floor of said house, got a room constructed in the open courtyard situated on ground floor along the eastern boundary of the house. With the construction of said additional room the roof thereof became available to the plaintiffs for being put to use. Bakshi Samsher Singh also consented to the plaintiffs' user of the roof on said additional room. The plaintiffs in order to approach the roof of additional room created two steps in concrete outside the windows adjoining the roof. A water tap was also installed on the roof in addition to a drain pipe to drain out the water of roof, by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs started using the roof of the said room for the purposes of storing house-hold material and for drying of clothes etc. It is stated that Bakshi Samsher Singh passed away towards the end of 1993. His only son who was the father of defendant No. 1, pre-deceased him. After the death of Bakshi Samsher Singh the defendant No. 1 became the landlord. Electricity meters of the entire house including the tenanted premises of the plaintiffs are installed in the garage which was in occupation of Bakshi Samsher Singh and after his death that of defendant No. 1. Bakshi Samsher Singh/defendant No. 1 used to open the lock and grant access to the garrage on the request of the plaintiffs to enable electric repairs and for the purpose of taking meter readings by the staff of DESU. It is further stated that Bakshi Samsher Singh transferred second floor of the said house to Ajit Singh Sahni, tenant in the year 1992. Thereafter, Ajit Singh raised further construction on the second floor. He also separated his water tank by installing a separate tubewell in the backyard of the house. As of now, there are two tubewells. The older tubewell feeds the overhead water tank which cater to the first and ground floors and servant quarter and the other tubewell feeds the overhead tank of Ajit Singh Sahni.

(3.) It is pleaded that with the rise of property values and rents the defendant No. 1 developed illegal designs to evict the plaintiffs from the tenanted premises which are governed by Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Defendant No. 1 has stopped accepting the rent after November, 1995. He has further resorted to placing locks on the door of garage. Defendant No. 1 shifted out from the ground floor on or about 3rd February, 1996. Thereafter the plaintiffs faced even more difficulties in accessing the electricity meters/MCBs installed in the garage. Because of unco-operative attitude of defendant No. 1 the meter reading has not been taken by the meter reader of DESU for the past few months and the plaintiffs have been receiving electricity bills on the basis of minimum charges. It is also alleged that defendant No. 2 took over the possession of the ground floor of the house sometime in March, 1996. He has verbally informed the plaintiffs that he has purchased that portion from defendant No. 1. However, no documents have been shown by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiffs nor there has been any intimation in this regard from defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs. It is stated that defendant No. 2 sometime in March, 1996 broke open the lock installed at the enterance gate of the-terrace. Sometime in June, 1996 he blocked the sewage pipes of the manhole situated in the open space of courtyard on the ground floor. Despite repeated requests the defendants and their servants refused to allow the plaintiffs to get the sewage cleared. The plaintiffs were, therefore, constrained to report the matter to the local police on 2nd June, 1996 but to no avail. Ultimately the blockage was removed by lowering a person into the open space from the first floor. It is pleaded that on 11 th July, 1996 the defendant No. 2 along with his wife and 3/4 goondas came to the tenanted premises and demanded the plaintiffs to vacate it. Plaintiffs immediately reported the matter to the police. Defendants and in particular defendant No. 2 has thereafter issued verbal threats to the plaintiffs that the next stage of their plan is to prevent the plaintiffs from parking their 4 vehicles in the drive way of the house. Defendant No. 2 has also threatened that he will ensure that the plaintiffs' water and electricity supplies are disrupted.