NIRMALA ABROL Vs. SURENDER MOHAN NAYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Nirmala Abrol felt aggrieved by the acts of the respondent Shri Surender Mohan Nayyar. According to her he violated the undertaking given by him to the Court thereby binding himself not to make any additions or alterations in the premises under his tenancy. Whereas he in fact has constructed a wooden structure in the open terrace area. He thus violated not only his undertaking given but also the order of the Court dated 2nd May, 1984.

(2.) In order to appreciate whether any contempt is made out or not, we must have quick glance to the brief and relevant facts of the case. The husband of the petitioner late Shri Bodh Raj Abrol filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondent. This was listed as Suit No. 403/82. With this suit, Mr. Abrol also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. On being served with that suit and the application, the present respondent filed the written statement and reply wherein he took the plea that he was not going to raise any structure or constructions in the open terrace or in any part ot the tenanted premises. He, however, took the plea that in order to give shelter from the burning heat of summer to his visitors, he intended to put a tarpaulin outside his room, so that the visitors could sit under the shadow of tarpaulin. He further took the plea that no change at all was intended by him. That putting a tarpaulin in the open terrace in front of his room would not in any way damage the property nor -could be construed as raising construction or making additions or alterations to the tenanted premises. He was interested to have temporary tarpaulin placed in the terrace only. In view of these submissions of the respondent herein the Trial Court vide its order dated 4th June, 1983 concluded that no prima facie ground was made out by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction because the respondent was only interested to put up tarpaulin in front of his room in the open terrace and was not going to raise any construction. Court further observed that the tarpaulin was to be put up on temporary basis. The stand of the respondent before the Trial Court as observed by the Sub Judge vide his order of 4th June, 1983 in para 4 of the judgment was that the respondent wanted to put only tarpaulin to protect from the burning heat and to create shed. That since tarpaulin was to be put up for specific purposes of saving himself from the sun, it did not amount to raising any construction or structure. It was in this background that temporary injunction was not granted. The clarification sought by the plaintiff late Mr. Bodh Raj Abrol was also rejected vide order dated 28th Jan., 1984. The Court below while disposing of interim application was aware of the fact that for fixing the tarpaulin respondent was using the material as support to put the tarpaulin temporarily. It was a removable thing.

(3.) In the written statement also the same plea was taken. However, during the pendency of the suit respondent gave an undertaking to the Court on 2nd May, 1984 in the following terms: