ASHA DASS Vs. DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arguments have been heard for disposing of both the civil revision petitions finally. Both these petitions arise out of the order dated June 9, 1987, of Shri G.P. Thareja, Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi by which he has dismissed an appeal filed by M/s. Dunlop India Limited (hereinafter described as 'the tenant') against an order dated May 16, 1987, of Shri D.S. Sidhu, Sub-Judge, on an application moved by Smt. Asha Dass & others (hereinafter described as 'the landlords') for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a suit brought by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction restraining the tenant from carrying out any additions/alterations or construction work in any part of the tenanted premises i.e. part of property No. 27-A, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi.

(2.) The tenant is in possession of ground floor portion of the said building alongwith garage, a driver room, four servant quarters, at the rental of Rs.3,000.00 per mensem since 1970. The premises had been led out for residential purposes as mentioned in the plaint. It is admitted fact that eviction cases filed by the landlords against the tenant are pending for some years. Now the plaintiffs instituted the present suit on January 5,1987, alleging that the defendant-tenant has started carrying out certain material additions and alterations in the tenanted premises without the consent of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the tenanted premises had been badly damaged resulting in putting the plaintiffs to a great financial loss and in spite of being asked to desist from carrying out any construction in the tenanted premises' the tenant has continued to cay out construction in the tenanted premises necessitating the filing of the suit seeking permanent injunctions. Alongwith the plaint an application was moved for getting temporary injunction to the same effect till the disposal of the suit.

(3.) The suit and the application were contested by the tenant. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs have not given any details of alleged additions and alterations being carried out in the premises and that plaintiffs have suppressed material facts inasmuch as the tenancy agreement between the parties permitted the tenant to carry out necessary additions and alterations in the suit premises without causing any damage to the suit -premises. It was pleaded that the renovations in the demised premises were commenced in mid December 1986 to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have acquiesced in the said carrying out of repair work in the premises. It was denied that any construction is being carried out in the premises. It was. pleaded that the building was an old one and needed substantial repairs which the plaintiffs failed to carry out and by virtue of letter containing terms of tenancy, the tenant was entitled to make such additions and alterations and put up or erect such fixtures and fittings which the tenant may consider necessary and the tenant was entitled to remove such additions, alterations fixtures and fittings from the premises on the termination of the tenancy, and the tenant had agreed to make good any damage caused to the demised premises by reason of such removal. In the written statement it was not clarified as to what sort of repair work was allegedly being carried out by the tenant in the premises. In the reply to the application for grant of interim injunction, the tenant mentioned that the tenant is making the premises centrally air-conditioned for more comfortable living at a huge cost.