VENUS DIAS Vs. ANTONIO CARDOZO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present revision application the petitioner challenges the order dated 10th April 1997 passed by Additional District Judge (A), Margao in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 107/96 whereby the learned Additional District Judge has set aside the order dated 31st October 1996 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 217/95/c in Regular Civil Suit No. 134/95/c and further thereby has allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent herein and the petitioner has been restrained from interfering in any manner with the suit urinal as well as from demolishing or removing the same till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) THE facts in the matter relate to a urinal situated by the side of Station Road at Margao in the property of the petitioner herein. It is the case of the respondent that he is the tenant in respect of a shop attached to the staircase in the building EXR Pereira situated at Station Road in the property bearing Chalta numbers 306 and 307, wherein he conducts the business of bar and restaurant under the name and style of Bar Cardozo or Cardozo Bar and Restaurant on payment of rent of Rs. 100/- per month to the petitioner and for the purpose of business he holds a valid licence from Margao Municipal Council. According to the respondent one of the conditions of grant of licence to conduct the activity of restaurant in the leased premises was that it should have the essential service of urinal provided for the same and as such the respondent was provided with such urinal facility from the time of commencement of the lease. Adjoining the leased premises there is a godown, which has been let out by the petitioner to one Ambe, who has sold the same to a third person with the consent of the petitioner herein and on instigation from the buyer of the godown, the petitioner is intending to demolish and/or remove the suit urinal to the prejudice of the respondent and his customers. According to the respondent, the said urinal is an essential service and the petitioner has no right to get the said urinal removed and to put the respondent to disgraceful situation by which his business will be ruined totally. The respondent, therefore, filed a suit for injunction to restrain the petitioner from interfering with the suit urinal and demolishing the same and pending the suit prayed for interim relief by an application for temporary injunction.

(3.) ON the contrary the case of the petitioner is that his father was a business-man and had office on the first floor of the building in question and the business was of transport contractor and as there was no urinal attached to the office the petitioner erected the said urinal exclusively for the use of the petitioner and his father. The construction of the urinal was done by one Alex Martins. Though there are several premises on the said first floor of the building no lessee is granted the facility of using the said urinal including Mr. Ambe, who occupies the godown premises adjoining the suit urinal and this is to the knowledge of the respondent. It is his further case that the respondent has nothing to do with the suit urinal and is in no way connected to the business or activities of the respondent in the shop premises leased out to the respondent and as such, the respondent is not entitled for any relief from the Court.