I D MALIK Vs. DULI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a land-lord, who biought a suit against respondent No. 1 who was his tenant to restrain him from using the leased premises for the purpose of a Flour Mill. The injunction was granted by the trial Court, but refused by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) . It is common ground that the leased premises have been occupied by the tenant from the inception of the tenancy in 1957 onwards for the purpose of a Karyana (Grocery) shop. The lease was first given to D.W. 1. Hardwari Lal, and respondent No. 1, Duli Chand, in 1957. It was continued in favour of respondent No. 1 alone in 1960hen Hardwari Lal left the premises. The land-lord's case as pleaded in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the plaint was that the premises was let out for the purpose of running a Karyana business and that the tenant was not to start any other business in the premises without the consent of the landlord. The land-lord complained that the tenant's proposal to use the premises for a Floor Mill was in complete disregard of the statutory and contractual obligations not to turn the shop from commercial to industrial purpose.

(3.) . The tenant in piras 2 and 4 of his written statement traversed paragraphs 2 and 4 of the plaint by denying that the premises were taken by him for Karyana business or for any other specific purpose. The premises were taken for commercial purposes in which any business or trade could be carried. The proposal to start a Flour Mill in the premises was not contrary to any condition in the lease that a particular business or trade was not to be carried on there.