AKBAR HUSSAIN Vs. JAI DEV VASHISTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 3.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment of the first appellant court suffers from perversity inasmuch as the evidence has not been correctly appreciated to arrive at a correct finding that the appellant is a tenant in respect of the suit property and consequently, it has fallen into grave error by passing a decree for permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction against the present appellant in the appeal.

(3.) THE respondent herein filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the present appellant. The case which was setup by the respondent against the appellant was that he was a tenant in respect of shop bearing No. WZ -345, C Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, and was running an atta chakki. It was also stated by him that he had employed the present appellant as a person helping him in running the said business. The respondent had also permitted the family of the present appellant to reside on the terrace over the shop as well as also permitted him to supplement his income by running a juice crusher outside the shop. It is alleged by the respondent that in the year 1998, the present appellant was caught by the Delhi Vidyut Board stealing electricity directly from the mains for the purpose of running his juice crusher machine because of which he was asked to pay a hefty sum of Rs. 16,000/ - to the DVB for the purpose of restoration of electricity to the shop. Because of these reasons, the services of the present appellant were dispensed with by the respondent and the amount of Rs. 16,000/ - was also deposited by the respondent with the DVB. The termination of the services of the appellant also resulted in calling upon him to vacate the shop; however, as he did not oblige the respondent, consequently, this led to filing of a suit for mandatory as well as permanent injunction seeking a direction to the appellant that he must not only remove himself from the shop in question but also clear the terrace above where his family was staying.