RAJESH Vs. MUSSADI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein suffers from a neo rich syndrome that a poor neighbor has no place to live and coexist. Petitioner who has become affluent, by demolishing three shops, has built a new modern contemporary showroom, whereas respondent neighbor is in occupation of shop which is partly made of a tin roof and mortar terrace. Furthermore respondent, who is a tenant is involved in a litigation with his landlord. Can such a person be allowed to suffer to his peril and give way to the riches of the petitioner? Therefore, this case is to be tested on the principle of 'Live and let live'. Above said being essence of the case, this Court shall now proceed to deal with the pleadings, orders passed by both the Courts below and the law cited by counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Respondent-Plaintiff had instituted a suit for mandatory injunction and consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the plaint, it was stated that he is in possession of a shop consisting of two Khans along with a tin shed in the front bearing Municipal No. 259, Ward No. 7, within the municipal limits of Sohna as a tenant under respondent-defendants No. 2 and 3 at a monthly rent of Rs. 14/- p.m.. It was further stated that towards northern side of the shop under the tenancy of the plaintiff, there was a Mori (a drain on the roof of the last khan at point X from the very inception of tenancy for discharging rainy water from the roof). The rainy water from the Mori at point X is discharged through a pipe and the same was connected and affixed in the southern wall of shop of defendant No. 1 from the very inception of tenancy. This as per the pleaded case was existing for the last more than 100 years without any objection by the petitioner-defendant. It was stated that the defendants who are influential persons and have great political backup in collusion with each other and officials of Municipal Committee, Sohna have blocked the drainage which was passing through the southern wall of the shop of defendant No. 1 in order to cause loss and damage to the tenanted premises in possession of the plaintiff. It was stated that on 23.5.2011, due to heavy rain in the town, there was accumulation of water on the roof. On the request made by the plaintiff to the defendant to remove the blockage, on flat refusal, the respondent-plaintiff was left with no option except to file the suit.

(3.) The trial Court while dealing with the application for grant of ad-interim injunction, noticed the facts that in the sale deed dated 14.5.1984 executed in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3, existence of the Mori from which the water is to be discharged is depicted. It was stated that defendant No. 1 having blocked the Mori has caused blockage to the discharge of the water which was existing for the last 100 years. The trial Court in its order dated 9.6.2011 concluded as under:-