RAJINDER SINGH Vs. BHAGWAT PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This order will decide an application (CM 339/2001) filed by the appellant under Section 151 CPC. the appellant has prayed for grant of interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from damaging the suit premises which comprised of a room in the tenancy of the appellant in property bearing no.4262, Gali Bharonwali, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110 006 and further creating any obstructions or hindrance in the repair work carried out by the appellant in the suit premises.

(2.) . In the application it is alleged that the appellant is tenant in a room on the ground floor of the suit premises which he is using as an office for running his business of contract-Halwai i.e. taking orders for parties and functions for a period of over 35 years. The respondents suit for recovery of the possession from him has been decreed. His appeal was also dismissed and he preferred the second appeal which has been admitted and the appellant's dispossession from the suit premises has been stayed during the pendency of the second appeal. The respondents in order to get rid of the appellant started damaging the property by "pounding/hitting by bricks/hammers during night" in order to reduce it into a ruin. If the property by such damage caused by the respondents became dangerous, the Municipal Corporation would also issue notice for its demolition. The appellant, therefore, wanted to repair the premises at his own expenses and cost.

(3.) . This application is resisted by the respondents who have pleaded that the appellant is not a tenant in the premises but he is a trespasser as held in the concurrent findings of the two courts below. It is also strongly refuted that any damage was caused or is being caused to the premises by hammering or pounding the structure or otherwise by the respondents. Rather, it is contended, that on account of heavy rains between the night of 13th and 14/08/2001 the house which was over 80 years old, has fallen down and that the premises in question has become inhabitable. It is denied that the appellant is carrying on any business of contract-Halwai in the premises and it is reiterated that he is a trespasser and has no right, title or interest of any kind in the premises. It is also denied that the appellant has right to reconstruct or he has even right to carry out any repair in the property at his own cost or otherwise. In the rejoinder the appellant reiterated his own case and denied that of the respondents.