PRALHAD AGENCY Vs. RAMDHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL plaintiff, who is the tenant, has preferred this revision application to challenge the order of the Joint District Judge, aurangabad, allowing the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 112/89, filed by the Original Defendant - the landlord and setting aside the order passed by the trial Court, below Ex. 5, in Regular Civil Suit No. 85/89 and dismissing the application, Ex. 5, of the petitioner, under which he claimed an injunction against the present respondent-the tenant.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, undisputed facts, are as under. The original defendant is the landlord of the premises bearing Municipal no. 5-22-1967 of Tilak Peth, Aurangabad, and the premises consists of two storeys. The ground floor is in possession of the original plaintiff being the tenant in the said premises and the said premises consists of two rooms and in the said premises the plaintiff carries on business of running a liquor shop. The defendant, the landlord resides on the upper storey. The plaintiff' claimed in the suit and the application, Ex. 5 that the defendant the landlord wants to evict him from the rented out premises to him and, therefore, has started damaging the floor of the upper storey, which falls the roof or the ceiling of the rented out premises the plaintiff claimed that the defendant started damaging the roof of the premises rented out to him by removing the tiles and due to that water has started percolating through the ceiling and due to this the ceiling and the roof of the shop has been damaged and the other articles in the shop premises including stock in trade is also damaged. The plaintiff further chimed that he repeatedly requested the defendant landlord to repair the roof, but he did not pay any heed and, therefore, ultimately he issued notice to the defendant that he should effect the repairs, but the defendant refused to accept the notice. The plaintiff thereafter gave a complaint to the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad on 4-10-1988 and the Corporation issued notice bearing No. 331/89, dated 16-1-1989 under Section 264 (2) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, calling upon the defendant to repair the damaged flooring of the upper storey, but the said notice was also not complied with. The plaintiff further claimed that he also requested the defendant to allow him to carry on he repairs at his own costs that he should allow him to enter on the first loot, which is in the occupation of the defendant for effecting the said repairs, but the said request was also not acceded to.

(3.) THE plaintiff further claimed that under Section 20 of the hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, (herein-after referred to as 'the Hyderebad Rent Control Act') he is entitled to carry out the reasonable repairs to keep the premises in good condition, he also claimed that in view of the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation, he is also entitled to comply the said notice and effect necessary repairs. The plaintiff, therefore, sought mandatory injunction against the defendant so as to direct him to comply with the notice issued by the municipal Corporation under Section 264 (2) or to allow the plaintiff to carry out the necessary repairs and for that purpose not to obstruct the plaintiff from effecting the repairs. The plaintiff also filed an application, ex. 5, to claim temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit and he plaintiff sought the identical reliefs in the suit.