ASHOK RAI Vs. TRILOK NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code for grant of an injunction restraining the defendant from causing any obstruction or interfering in any manner with the peaceful enjoyment by the plaintiff of the roof of the first floor of the premises being No.S-55, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. The facts, in short, giving rise to the present controversy between the parties are that:

(2.) M/s.Qaleen International of which plaintiff is the sole proprietor is a tenant under the defendant in respect of the first floor of the premises No.S-55, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, open balcony, servant quarter on top of the garage block and terrace at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500.00 p.m. The premises was let out to the plaintiff with effect from 1st March, 1987 at a rent of Rs. 1,900.00 p.m. and since then the rent is being increased from time to time and the last rent is stated to be Rs. 2,500.00 p.m. It is alleged that the roof of the first floor is in exclusive possession of the plaintiff. The overhead tanks are located and installed on the roof. Two T.V. antennas are also installed on the roof and the plaintiff is allegedly using the roof for drying of clothes, etc. The only access to the roof had been either through the window of the servant quarter on the second floor over the garage or through the wooden ladder from the tenanted premises of the plaintiff on the first floor. There was no other way to reach the roof. It is alleged that the defendant started putting up iron staircase from the landing of the concrete staircase at the first floor level of the servant quarter to the roof and on enquiries being made by the plaintiff, the defendant informed him that he was making the staircase only with a view to clean the overhead tanks as it caused inconvenience to him to go through the window of the servant quarter to the roof for cleaning the overhead tanks, etc. On 12th January, 1993 the defendant started fixing an iron raillng on a portion of the ledge over the kitchen and brought an iron door at the site with the sole object of obstructing the plaintiffs access to the roof The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit alleging that the defendant did not have any right to obstruct the plaintiff from having access to the roof which had been in his exclusive possession, use and enjoyment and the sole object of the defendant in fixing the iron railing and the door was to cause harassment to the plaintiff. It is alleged that number of suits/petitions were pending between the parties and the defendant with a view to evict the plaintiff from the tenanted premises is preventing the plaintiff from use and enjoyment of the roof with ulterior designs. The plaintiff has. therefore, sought a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from blocking or in am manner obstructing the plaintiff's access to the roof through the window/ opening from the servant quarter in his tenancy and from locking the iron door so as to deny access to the roof through the iron staircase and from raising any construction over the roof of the first floor.

(3.) Alongwith the suit. an application for temporary injunction was filed for the grant of above reliefs during the pendancy of the suit. By an ex parte order of injunction passed on January 15,1993, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that day with respect to the suit premises. By the same order. the Court had also appointed a local commissioner to visit the premises in question on that day itself and make his report about the existing state of affairs.