SHRI PEAREY LAL (DECEASED) NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS L.RS (M/S.) Vs. MAHANT RAM NATH (SINCE DECEASED NOW REPRESENTED BY LRS) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is in fact only in the nature of cross objections by the respondents/defendants in RSA No.92/2013 for sustaining the judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff, and whose legal heirs are now the appellants in RSA No.92/2013. Accordingly, this second appeal is disposed of by considering the present appeal as arguments for sustaining the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court which are challenged in RSA No. 92/2013. This RSA is therefore disposed of as not pressed subject to the aforesaid observations. RSA No.92/2013

(2.) This Regular Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit challenging the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 31.1.2012 and the First Appellate Court dated 1.4.2013; by which the courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration and injunction with respect to claim of the plaintiffs of tenancy in premises being shop no.1, Kalkaji Mandir, Delhi comprising of two rooms and two varandas. I note that original plaintiff died pendente lite and he was substituted by his legal heirs and who hence became the plaintiffs. Reference to appellants/plaintiffs will include reference to the original plaintiff wherever the context so requires. Plaintiffs had also claimed the relief of injunction to restrain the defendants/landlords/respondents from allowing any person other than the plaintiff from opening another halwai shop in the entire premises of the Kalkaji Mandir.

(3.) While admitting this second appeal on 21.8.2013, the following substantial question of law was framed: