HARISH CHANDRA BHUTANI Vs. INDERJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2007 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 20.11.2004. Vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2004, the suit filed by the plaintiff Inderjeet Singh seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, (to the effect that the shutter affixed by the defendant on the suit premises i.e. shop in property no. 1/810, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi is illegal; defendant be directed to remove the said shutter as it is illegal and unauthorized), had been dismissed. Impugned judgment had reversed this finding. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed in part; defendant had been restrained from carrying out any further construction in the suit property; he had been restrained from using the roof which had come into existence on account of the aforenoted additions and alterations carried out by him.

(2.) THE plaintiff had taken the aforenoted the suit property on rent from the defendant at the monthly rental of Rs. 175/-; this was vide Rent Deed dated 26.03.1984; the transaction had been entered into with Smt. Madan Kaur, the deceased mother of the plaintiff. Smt. Madan Kaur had died on 08.06.1995; after her death, the defendant had attorned to the plaintiff; plaintiff was the landlord of the defendant; defendant had no right to sublet, assign or part with the tenanted premises or to make any unauthorized alternations or additions which he did without permission of the plaintiff; he had affixed several shutters in the shop at a distance of 8 ft in each wall i.e. approximately 60 ft in length, giving a new shape to the tenanted premises; this came to be known to the plaintiff on 18.01.99 when he visited the shop to realize the rent; defendant was directed not to cause damage to the suit property or make any additions or alterations without the consent of the plaintiff but to no avail; local police had also been approached but they did not paid any heed. Present suit was accordingly filed.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led which included two PWs on behalf of the plaintiff as also the local commissioner; one witness was examined on behalf of the defendant. Trial judge was of the view that the Rent Deed Ex. PW 1 /2 was not registered in view of the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, it could not be looked back; not even for a collateral purpose. At the same time, the trial judge had relied upon Clause 6 of the Rent Deed to non-suit the plaintiff; trial judge was of the view that Clause 6 gave ample power to the plaintiff to make necessary additions and alterations in the suit premises; plaintiff was not able to prove his case. His suit was dismissed.