LAWS(ALL)-1991-1-153

PRABHAWATI DEVI Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR

Decided On January 19, 1991
PRABHAWATI DEVI Appellant
V/S
VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the landlord of the disputed premises has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 15.11.1989 passed by the Munsif, Gorakhpur and the order dated 25.7.1990. passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur. By the impugned orders, temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the tenant-plaintiff-respondent No. 3, restraining the landlord from damaging the roof and interfering with the plaintiff's right to make necessary repairs of the roof as also restraining the landlord from collecting the soil over the roof. The defendant was further restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection. The interim injunction granted by the trial Court was also confirmed by Appellate Court in appeal filed by the landlord against the order granting temporary injunction.

(2.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner-landlord has not challenged the aforesaid orders mainly on the ground in view of the provisions of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, the tenant had an equally efficacious remedy initiating proceedings under Section 27 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and, on such, no injunction should be granted and the suit itself was not maintainable. The impugned order have also been challenged on merits, that there was no finding by the Courts below that there was any damage done to the roof and the same required any repair. It is also not established that any soil has been collected by the landlord and water thrown which leaks through the damaged roof.

(3.) IN my opinion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid reliefs cannot be granted under Sections 26, 27 and 28 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. The revisions of Section 9, CPC confer jurisdiction on the Civil Court to deal with such matters except to the extent it is excluded by the express provisions of law or even impliedly. The provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 do not in any way prohibit the institution of civil suits in the Civil Court for such reliefs.