RAM SEWAK Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS review petition has been filed by tenant-respondent No. 2 seeking to review my judgment and order dated 10. 3. 2006. Some portions of my judgment are quoted below:-"it was also stated that just behind the shop land having dimension of 8' x 75' was also purchased by the landlady. However, there was no proper passage to the said land except through the shops in dispute. Hence landlady proposed to make construction on the said land in such manner that the said construction along with shop in dispute could be properly approachable. "

(3.) LANDLORD alongwith his counter-affidavit to the review application sworn on 9. 12. 2007 has filed copy of the sanctioned map (regarding sanction/permission there is some dispute between parties ). In the said map existing shop in dispute and the land behind that purchased by the landlord has been shown. It is in the shape of a long strip (8' x 90' ). Towards road existing shop in dispute width of which is 7' 6" along side road and depth is 21' 6" has been shown, Thereafter staircase is shown and thereafter open Court yard of 12' depth is shown. Thereafter one shop of 15' depth is shown and thereafter shop of 17' depth is shown which is proposed to be given to the tenant after construction. The Court during argument repeatedly enquired from the learned Counsel for landlord as to how the tenant would reach to the proposed shop as he would have to pass through two shops and there was no guarantee that the occupants of the said shops would allow free access to him and his customers, however no reply to the said query could be given.