SATYANAND SHARMA Vs. RESHMI SETH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order I am disposing of two Civil Revision petition i.e. CR No. 7834 of 2010 filed by Defendant No. 1 Dr. Satyanand Sharma and CR No. 7839 of 2010 filed by Defendant No. 2 Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, both challenging same judgment dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure P-19 in CR No. 7834 of 2010).

(2.) Respondents Nos. 1 to 4/Plaintiffs filed suit against both the Petitioners for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction. Along with the suit, Plaintiffs moved application for temporary injunction. The Plaintiffs' case is that they are owners/landlords of the suit property having purchased it from its previous owners Smt. Indu Talwar and others vide sale deed dated 27.12.2006. Defendant No. 1 is in possession of a shop out of the suit property as tenant. Suit property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and requires reconstruction. Plaintiffs have already filed ejectment petition against Defendant No. 1 inter alia on this ground. Said ejectment petition is pending. In order to defeat the said ejectment petition, Defendant No. 1 who was working as official with Defendant No. 2 devised a mechanism in collusion with Defendant No. 2 and got served notice dated -2 28.08.2007 by Defendant No. 2 on the Plaintiffs requiring the Plaintiffs to repair the disputed building, which is beyond repair. The Defendants were trying to effect repairs, additions and alterations in the suit property by raising fresh construction without any right to do so. The Plaintiffs sought temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from doing so during pendency of the suit.

(3.) Defendants by filing separate written statements/replies contested the suit and the application for temporary injunction. Defendant No. 1 claimed to be tenant in a part of the ground floor of the building since 01.10.1971. It was denied that the suit property is in dilapidated condition or has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or that it requires reconstruction. On the contrary, the Plaintiffs want to sell the suit property after getting it vacated so that it may fetch higher price. The Plaintiffs and the previous landlord Parveen Kumar Talwar and others demolished a part of the roof and caused other intentional damage so as to create ground for ejectment of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 also received complaints regarding dangerous condition of the building and accordingly Defendant No. 2 issued notice under Section 254 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (in short, the Act), requiring the Plaintiffs to carry out necessary repairs. Previous owner Parveen Kumar Talwar had filed suit against the Defendants. Temporary injunction against the Defendant No. 2 was declined and appeal preferred against said order of the trial court was dismissed, and ultimately the said suit was also dismissed although counter-claim filed by Defendant No. 1 in the said suit is still pending. Defendant No. 2 claimed right to make immediate repairs in the building to protect loss of life and property, taking shelter under Section 254 of the Act.