VEENA KOHLI Vs. RAWAL APARTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application (IA No. 12210/96) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the plaintiff seeking temporary mandatory injunction and prohibitory order against the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed auit for mandatory and prohibitory injunctions on the allegations that the plaintiff as Sole Proprietor of M/s. Kohli Graphic Systems is a tenant at lower ground floor of property No. M-3, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi of the defendant. The premises were taken on lease by virtue of lease deed dated June 10, 1983 on a montly rent of Rs. 15337.17 P. for commercial purposes and throughout she has been using the premises for commercial purposes for her business. In terms of lease it has been renewed in 1986, 1989, 1992 and 1995 every time with increase of rent by 20% and the present rent is Rs. 31,181.06 P. Plaintiff was also provided toilet on the ground floor shown as mark 'T' in the plan filed with the plaint which has been in her use and occupation from the very beginning as part of her tenancy and she has incurred expenditure for its renovation also. Since December, 1995 the defendant has been demanding a further enhancement in the rent first @ Rs. 50 per Sq. Ft. per month and then vide another letter dated February 29, 96 @ Rs. 100 Sq. Ft. per month. This demand was unlawful and was not acceded to by her. With a view to force the plaintiff to leave the premises the defendant started harassing her and suddenly on November 8, 1996 the defendant broke open the lock of the aforesaid toilet, removed its door and demolished its bathroom fittings and then closed it by brick wall for which a FIR was lodged with the police but to no effect. The plaintiff and her employees which include lady employees have been deprived of the toilet facility. This toilet is absolutely necessary for the use of the premises. The plaintiff has prayed for mandatory injunction to remove the wall unauthorisedly erected at the entrance of the toilet and to restore it to its original state and also a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with or obstructing plaintiff's possession, use and occupation to the said toilet. Defendant has filed written statement and reply to the application and has contested the suit and the application. It is admitted that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant on the basement floor. However, it is alleged that the premises were let out for storage purposes and not for use for commercial purposes and according to the sanctioned plan also the premises can be used for storage as a godown. It is not disputed that lease deed executed on 10.6.83 provided renewals and was renewed at enhanced rent. As regards the use of the toilet it is alleged that the plaintiff was never provided any toilet by the defendant and the plaintiff has been using the premises only for storage purposes, and she and her employees have been using public toilet in front of the premises or of the tenant on the first floor. It is alleged that there was a shaft which was misused as a toilet and it was cause of nuisance and was closed in October, 1996; that shaft cannot be used as a toilet. It is denied that defendant had broken open the lock of the said toilet on 8.11.96 or any fittings had been provided there. It is thus denied that the plaintiff was either provided with a toilet or she is entitled to the use of any toilet facility.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the use of the premises for commercial purposes has been specifically agreed in the lease deed and the premises has always been used for commercial purposes and it is also clear from the material on record that the plaintiff had also been provided and was throughout in use and enjoyment of toilet facility which was also absolutely necessary as the plaintiff is a lady and has also other lady employees, that a toilet existed at the disputed place is also shown in the photographs filed by her; use and existence of this toilet has also not been specifically denied by the defendant. This action of defendant is mala fide as they wanted to increase the rent which was not agreed to by the plaintiff and as a coercive measure the defendant has adopted this course. This toilet and two other toilets exist on the ground floor and nobody has raised any objection that these are not according to sanctioned building plans; a prima facie case is made out and great hardship is being caused to the plaintiff by depriving the usof the toilet and in these circumstances an interim mandatory injunction is most appropriate remedy. He has relied on M/s. Magnum Films and another Vs. Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1983 Delhi 392, Baldev Raj Vs. Smt. Savitri Bai 1982 Delhi NOC, 49, Sanjai Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs. Vice-Chancellor, Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and others AIR 1991 All. 21, Goverdhan Singh Vs. Mulkh Rai and another AIR 1973 J & K 63, Baban Narayan Landge Vs. Mahadu Bhikaji Tonchar and others AIR 1989 Bombay 247 and Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden AIR 1990 SC 867.