RAWAL SINGH Vs. KWALITY STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is perpetual lessee of shop No. 47, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi, having purchased the same from the President of India through the Ministry of Rehabilitation. The formal lease deed though executed on 5-8-71 (Ex. P. 4) reeked that the lease commenced from 23-5-1956, and is for a period of 99 years. The shop itself is a single storey and according to the plaintiff, is lying let out to the defendants from Feb. 1958 on monthly rent of Rs. 170.00. The premises so demised is described in para 1 of the plaint as to constitute all that exists on the ground floor. The roof of the shop was, however, stated to be not part of the demised premises, and so also the staircase which is common of shops Nos. 47 and 48, leading to the roof. As such the plaintiff asserts that he has every right to pass through the back door leading to the staircase and the roof. In the year 1963 when he was serving as Sq. Leader in the Indian Air Force, and posted at Deolali, he wanted to build second storey on the shop, and gave a plan prepared by an architect to the defendants for submission to the appropriate authorities for sanction. The defendants, however, by a letter dated 11-3-1963 put him off by representing that the plans of second storeys were not being sanctioned.

(2.) It has also been averred that during the plaintiff's absence from Delhi, the defendants enclosed the front verandah by raising walls on two sides and shifted the shutter from its original place to the outside of verandah. They have also included the back verandah into the shop by raising the wall on the outer side, and further covered the back courtyard. All these are alleged to be unauthorised and amount to changes of substantial nature in the shop, and violate the terms of the lease. It was after 1971 when he retired from service and came to Delhi that he came to know of these alterations. The Land and Development Office on learning of them in 1974, wanted to carry out inspection of the premises for determining whether any infringement of the lease had taken place. However, the defendants did not allow them to enter the premises.

(3.) The plaint avers that the plaintiff filed an eviction petition against the defendants in 1977 on the ground that he wanted to raise the second storey on the shop. and further that the defendants had unauthorisedly effected alterations in the premises. That petition, however, was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 9-7-1981, and the plaintiff's appeal was also rejected by the Rent Control Tribunal on 14-7-1982. In the plaint it is not mentioned that a second appeal is pending in that case in this Court, but it was so represented at the time of the final hearing of this suit.