SHREE NIWAS Vs. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.6.92 and 25.7.93 (Annexures 9 and 10) passed by the IInd Additional Munsif, Aligarh and Xth Additional District Judge, Aligarh, respectively. The petitioner is the landlord and respondent No. 3 is the tenant-defendant in O.S. No. 490 of 1987. The petitioner submitted an application in the said suit for an injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. restraining the defendant No. 3 from making any construction or repair of the house in his tenancy. The plaintiff- landlord pleaded in the suit as well as in the injunction application that tenant was proceeding for making repair and constructions in the accommodation in his tenancy which is likely to cause material alteration in the building, and the petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable injury and damages. The petitioner-landlord stated that the house is very old and dilapidated. The flooring has become cracked and the floor material has also been damaged and there was likelihood of the roof to fall any moment. It was also stated that the Nagar Mahapalika also issued notice for demolition of the house in question as it has become dangerous and dilapidated.

(2.) THE respondent No. 3 filed objection to the petitioner's application and pleaded that the petitioner landlord is adamant that respondent may vacate the house in question at any cost. He further pleaded that the certain wooden beams of the building have become rotten which needed replacement. The wall needed repairs as it has developed some cracks for the neglect by the landlord in keeping the accommodation windproof and waterproof. The respondent pleaded that he had been regularly paying the rent to the landlord but the landlord stopped receiving rent himself for no cause and filed a suit for recovery of rent in the Court of Judge Small Causes being Suit No. 318 of 1986. Another Suit No. 609 of 1985 was also filed for permanent injunction against the respondent and the said suit was dismissed on merits by the judgment and decree dated 28.5.87. The accommodation in the tenancy of the respondent is sufficiently strong but the landlord petitioner removed the wooden beams from the roof and some bricks so that the respondent be compelled to leave the accommodation in his tenancy.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the respondent No. 3 tenant filed an appeal before the District Judge which was transferred to the Court of Xth Additional District Judge, Aligarh. It is important to note that the trial Court by order dated 19.9.87 was pleased to pass an interim direction in the suit that both the parties shall maintain status quo.