N K GILLANI Vs. VINOD AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit for perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from taking forcible possession of the tenancy premises of the plaintiff in respect of the property bearing No. B-228, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1, Nuraina. New Delhi and also from interfering in the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff, in any manner, and also from disconnecting the electricity connection of the plaintiff from where the plaintiff is getting electricity for carryina on business in the tenancy premises of the plaintiff in the aforesaid property by IA No. 2326/95 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff seeks to restraint the defendant in identical terms pend- ing the hearing and disposal of the suit and by I.A. 3751/95 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, the defendant prays for discharge/modification of the order dated 14.3.1995, granted by this court in IA 2326/95.

(2.) The say of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the sole proprietor of the business M/s. Poly Pads Industries and is running his business in premises bearing No. B-228, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, Naraina, New Delhi as the tenant at the monthly rent of RS.1000.00 in respect of the portion of the said property since 1985; that the suit premises consists of two portions, inter-connecting each other and. in between the same, there is a door which gives the ingress and egress to each of the portion in the tenancy of the plaintiff, besides the open space, as shown RED in the site plan. Thus, according to the plaintiff, as the tenant of the suit premises, he is in lawful possession occupation of the same at the monthly rent of RS.1000.00 .

(3.) The defendant, in the written statement, has contended that the plaintiff approached the defendant for letting out Room No.6, which is a L-shape room in 1986 and the defendant agreed to let nut the premises to himat a monthly rent of RS.1000.00 . The defendant has also produced the sketch showing various rooms/structure in the suit premises. It is the say of the defendant that plaintiff is in occupation in respect of Room No.6 as the tenant thereof and not in occupation of Room No.5, shown in the plan produced along with the written statement whereas, as pointed out above, the plaintiff also claims to be in possession of the open piece of land as the tenant thereof besides Room No.5 & 6.