RAJ RANI KAPOOR Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act was finally disposed of by this court on 28- 8-1986. Since reported in 1986 AWC 1214. The court had set aside the findings recorded by the trial court and after pointing out the errors which the trial court had committed, gave certain directions to the trial court and remanded the matter to it for deciding the suit afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. The tenant being aggrieved by the order passed by this court approached the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition by him was allowed and the matter was remanded to this court with a direction that the High Court itself should decide the questions passed by it instead of remanding the matter to the trial court. THIS is how the matter has come up again before this court for disposing of the revision.

(2.) SRI S. P. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant landlady and SRI Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the tenant opposite party both have been quite fair in stating that the observations made by this court on the points raised need not be reiterated and the court may, therefore, confine itself in deciding the controversies which were left for decision by the trial court after remand. In view of this categorical statement of the learned counsel for the parties, the court does not think it necessary to go over again on the points which had been considered by it earlier and the said judgment shall form an integral part of the findings that are proposed to given.

(3.) I propose to take up the first point first. The finding recorded by the trial court is that the offending structure was supported on poles embedded in the ground and is fastened to the building by means of angle iron brackets using nuts and bolts. The whole structure can be removed without causing any damage to the main building by unscrewing the nuts and bolts and thus dismantling it step by step. The trial court further found that there existed a 'U' wide road towards north i.e. to the back of the building. The question that remains to be decided is whether raising of structure of this nature which is visible from the road towards the north can amount to disfiguring the building ?