SHRI MA Vs. SHRI ANTORNIO XAVIOR SILVOIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 248/80/C of the file of the Civil Court at Panaji has preferred this Revision Application against the dismissal of his application for ad interim mandatory injunction. This decision has been confirmed by the District Court at Panaji-Goa in Civil. Appeal No. 279 of 1980.

(2.) The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. The defendant owns a house and a part thereof has been let out to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been carrying on business of a Bar-cum-Restaurant in the said rented premises. The dispute is about the extent or the nature of the rented premises. According to the plaintiff, the two rooms inclusive of one kitchen were let out to him while the defendant's allegation is that the kitchen room was never a part of the rented premises. The grievance of the plaintiff is that some time before filing of the suit, the defendant closed the kitchen door and thus prevented the plaintiff's access to the kitchen. The plaintiff therefore, filed the suit in question for a permanent mandatory injunction directing the defendant to open the door of the kitchen and in that suit the plaintiff also prayed for a temporary injunction.

(3.) The defendant resisted the application. In substance, his contention is that the kitchen was never let out to the plaintiff. In paragraph 2 of his reply he has alleged that on account of the harmonious relationship between the parties, at the time of the lease-agreement of 1972, the plaintiff was, allowed to use a portion of the kitchen room, despite the fact that the said kitchen room was an integral part of the defendant's residential premises. The defendant then pleaded that the plaintiff has entered into a partnership with some other person for carrying out a business of Bar-cum-restaurant and that the use of the kitchen by the servants of the said business was effecting the privacy of the defendant. It is for this reason that the defendant has closed the kitchen door.