PARMESHWARI DASSKHANNA Vs. BHALA NATH PARIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this regular second appeal succinctly are that the appellant has been in occupation of Shop No. VIII/ 328, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, as a tenant under the respondent on a monthly rent of-Rs. 18.60 since early fifties. There was a platform in front of the said shop which was 2.2." higher than the level of foot-path. The level of the floor inside the shop was at the same height from the pavement. However, the appellant lowered the level of the platform by about "without the consent and permission of the Respondent/landlord. He also replaced the wooden shutter with an iron shutter likewise. He intended even to lower the level of the floor, of the. shop so as to bring it to the level of the platform infront of the shop. This necessitated dismantling of the existing floor and lowering the plinth of the shop by 1. On coming to know of it the respondent-landlord objected to the same but in vain. Finding that the appellant was adament the respondent-landlord instituted a suit for injunction as far back as June 1965, to restrain the appellant from lowering the level of the floor of the shop and effecting any other alteration in the same.

(2.) The appellant resisted, inter alia, contending that suit for perpetual injunction as framed was not maintainable in as much as he was merely repairing the floor of the shop which was uneven in order to bring it to the level of the platform outside. He asserted that he had put up the iron shutter at a very heavy cost with the consent of the respondent/landlord and even otherwise he was within his right to put the shutter to protect his property lying in the shop.

(3.) It was urged that it was for the sake of convenience of the customers that the floor of the shop which was uneven was being lowered and brought to the level of the platform outside as there was a possibility for customers stumbling over the same. He denied that he had any intention to carry out any alterations in the structure of the shop as such. In other words, his plea was that the lowering of the floor of the shop was not tant- amount to alteration in the structure of the shop and it was just a necessary repair which he could do in his own right as a tenant. It was further urged that mere relaying of the floor did not in any manner prejudice the security of the building; rather it would make the shop better serviceable. The trial proceeded on the following issues :