SWAMI RAM KISHORE MAHANT Vs. MASTER RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal against two orders of even date viz. 15th July 1983 of an Additional District Judge, Delhi, succinctly are that way-back, in January 1971 the appellant describing himself as Swami Ram Kishore, Head Mahant, Shahpura (Rajasthan) instituted a suit against the respondent for mandatory and perpetual injunction on the allegations that a portion of property bearing municipal No. 4 situated in Commissioner's Lane, Civil Lines. Delhi, commonly known as 'Ram Dwara' was let out to the respondent. The demised premises consisted of two rooms and an open verandah in front thereof. The monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 20.00 only. Sometime before the institution of the suit the respondent unlawfully converted the aforesaid open verandah into a regular room by enclosing it from all sides and fixing doors and windows in the walls. The Said construction, according to the plaintiff/appellant, had been made unauthorisedly without his permission. So, he prayed that the defendant/respondent be directed to remove the unauthorised structural changes and construction and in the event of his failure to do so, the same be got removed through court process. He also averred that on coming to know of the aforesaid illegal and unauthorised construction, he served a notice dated 25th March 1970 on the respondent calling upon him to restore the premises to its original shape and pull down the structural changes but the defendant failed to remove the unauthorised structure. The said suit was instituted by one Devi Pershad as General Attorney of the plaintiff/appellant.

(2.) In the written statement filed by t he defendant/respondent, a preliminary objection was raised that the suit had not been properly presented by a duly authorised person. Of facts he admitred his tenancy but denied having made any addition or alteration in the demised premises, as alleged, as according to him the demised premises included two rooms and a covered verandah. He asserted that the only purpose to institute the suit was to harass him and to pressurise him into increasing the rent. He pointed out that the plaintiff had refused to accept rent from him when tendered through money order and by means of cheques.

(3.) Following issues were framed by the trial Court on the pleadings of the parties: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction claimed ; and (2) Whether the suit is filed by a duly authorised person.