OM PRAKASH Vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Om Parkash appellant-plaintiff is directed against the order dated October 10,1995 of a learned Single Judge dismissing I.A. No. 4451/93.

(2.) Suit has been filed, inter alia, on the allegations that Manohar Lal, father of the appellant and respondents-defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was the owner of property No. 18-A, New Colony, Jhabumal Colony, Model Basti, behind Filmistan Cinema, New Delhi and he expired on June 27,1994. During his life time Manohar Lal made a Will dated April 4, 1972. Under the Will Smt. Pushpa Wanti, wife of Manohar Lal got life estate in the said property No. 18-A. It was noted in the Will that after the demise of Smt. Pushpa Wanti the said property would devolve in favour of four sons namely, Banarsi Lal, Surinder Kumar, Brij Bhushan and 0m Psrkash in equal shares. Another property Bearing No. 19, New Colony, Jhabumal Colony, behind Filmistan Cinema is the self-acquired property of Smt. Pushpa Wanti purchased under a sale deed dated February26,1979. On November20,1992 Smt. Pushpa Wanti let out the basement and the ground floor of above property No. 18-A, New Colony to the appellant on a monthly rental of Rs. 750.00 for commercial purpose and possession thereof was handed over to him on November 25, 1992. Rent stands paid through crossed cheques upto June, 1993 to Smt. Pushpa Wanti. On the same day Smt. Pushpa Wanti further let out basement, first floor, second floor, terrace and the open space 45 ft. x 12 ft. on the ground floor (rear set back) of said property No. 19, New Colony on a monthly rental of Rs. 2700.00 to the appellant. and the possession of that accommodation was handed over to him on November 25, 1992. Rent upto June, 1993 in respect of this accommodation also stands paid through crossed cheques to Smt. Pushpa Wanti. It is alleged that dispute has arisen between the appellant and respondents No. 1 and 2 in relation to certain business in which they are partners. Both the said tenanted accommodations are being used by the appellant for running business in the name of Raja Textiles whereof he is the sole proprietor. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are threatening to dispossess the appellant from the tenanted accommodations. It is prayed that by means of a decree for permanent injunction respondents, their agents and employees be restrained from interfering in the appellant's peaceful use of the said accommodations and dispossessing him therefrom.

(3.) In the suit, I.A.No. 4451/93 under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was also filed for issue of ad interim injunction and vide order dated May 5,1993 both the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of both the tenanted accommodations.