RAM SAROOP Vs. JANKI DASS JAI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has come up before us on a reference by a learned single Judge of this Court, Prakash Narain J. The two appellants herein, Ram Saroop and Bhim sen, were the plaintiffs in Suit No. 825 of 1966 on the file of Shri Shamsher Singh Kanwar, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi. They were the owners of Shop No. 256, Anaj Mandi, Shahdara. The respondents herein, Messrs Janki Dass Jai Kumar and the Delhi Municipal Corporation, were the two defendants in the suit. The case of the appellants-plaintiffs was that Messrs Janki Dass Jai Kumar had been in possession of the aforesaid shop as a tenant and had been carrying on the business of food grains for the last fifteen years, that the said tenant, with a view to set up a factory in the shop, had applied for power connection and was trying to put up machinery in the shop without the permission of the owners, that the shop was an old construction and if a factory was run in the premises by putting up an electric motor and machinery, it would cause substantial damage to the shop, that the tenant had no right to change the nature of its user without the permission of the owners, and that it was, therefore, necessary that the tenant should be restrained from installing an electric motor and machinery in the shop. They, therefore, filed the aforesaid suit praying for an injunction restraining the tenant from installing an electric motor and machinery in the shop.

(2.) Messrs Janki Dass Jai Kumar filed a written statement stating that it had been carrying on the business of food grains in the premises. that it had been let out to it for commercial purposes and no permission from the owners was therefore, required, and that the setting up of a factory and the installation of an electric motor and machinery would not cause damage to the premises. It also contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. The Delhi Municipal Corporation filed a written statement stating that power connection had been sanctioned by the Delhi Administration, and pointing out that no relief had been claimed against it in the Suit.

(3.) The appellants-plaintiffs filed their replication reiterating the pleas in the plaint. On those pleadings the trial court framed the following issues :