BHARAT IRON MANUFACTURING WORKS BAREILLY Vs. BIMLA GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal. The defendant was let out the disputed premises consisting of two Khaprail rooms and open land by registered agreement (Ext-1) on record. After some time the defendant is alleged to have demolished and tried to reconstruct the same. Instead of two rooms the defendant wanted to make three. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for an injunction against them, claiming that the defendant be restrained from demolishing the plaintiff's building or in any other way damaging, changing or reconstructing the same. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below with the finding that the constructions were pulled down by the defendant. The statement of the defendant that the roof came down itself was disbelieved. Other witnesses to that effect have also been disbelieved as the Court below could not conceive that the roof would come down with a bang. Roof or any upper portion when falls must come down with noise. There was no discrepancy in the statements of witnesses nor any unbelievable portion could be found in their evidence. The reason appears to be that the defendant and the witnesses were poor commoners. Plaintiff was a distinguished citizen. It is a matter of regret that the plaintiff's hearsay has been accepted and has been believed merely because she was a Senior Advocate, D. G. C, and a member of the U. P. Bar Council, I have seen her statement. It is clear that she was not present at the time of alleged demolition of the constructions. No other witness was produced by her. Thus, there was no rebuttal to the defendant's evidence that the structure fell of itself. Evidence Act is the same and applies to all witnesses without any discrimination. Under the Transfer of Property Act, the tenant was bound to maintain the premises in his tenancy in a good condition and he his to restore the property in the same shape and condition in which it was taken by him. If he has caused any damage to the property he is bound to make good, and restore the property to its original shape as at the commencement of lease. The defendant could restore the constructions which earlier existed. Of course he could not make any new construction nor structural changes in the cons tructions. The defendant was not only entitled to but it was his duty to restore constructions to the extent of the original constructions. He could not make any new wall or such constructions which did not exist earlier. Under the circumstances no absolute injunction can be granted against the defendant restraining him from making any construction or to reconstruct the fallen portions. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are modified to the extent that the defendant is restrained from making any fresh constructions which did exist at the time of commencement of his lease. He will be entitled only to restore and reconstruct this structures which existed earlier. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. .