K H HOTELS PVT LIMITED Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K .H.Hotels Pvt. Limited, the defendant No.1 is in revision before me, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 15.6.2011 (Annexure P6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh as well as the order dated 30.9.2011 (Annexure P8) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.

(2.) KRISHAN Kumar and others, the respondents have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, including their directors, managers, agents etc. from digging, raising construction, removing flooring, demolishing walls, damaging lintel or doing any other type of acts in the tenanted premises causing damage thereby to the same as also from violating the building bye -laws framed under the Capital of Punjab Development and Regulations Act (for short, "the Act") as applicable to Union Territory of Chandigarh.

(3.) THE defendant - K.H.Hotels Private Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act. It approached the plaintiffs to take on rent the premises of shop -cum -office (SCO) No. 17, Sector 26, Chandigarh (for short,"the leased premises") for using the same as office and for purposes of trade contacts i.e., business and commercial purposes. After due negotiations, a registered lease deed dated 17.2.2010 came into being between the parties regarding the property for a period of 8 years, from 17.2.2010 to 31.3.2018. It was obligatory on the part of the defendants under the terms of the lease deed to abide by the terms and conditions of the lease deed as also the regulations framed under the Act. The leased premises had been constructed strictly in accordance with the plan as sanctioned by the concerned department of Chandigarh Administration. The defendants in utter violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed started doing illegal and unlawful acts such as, digging out the back courtyard etc. The plaintiffs reside in Sangrur and they visit Chandigarh rarely. Taking advantage of their absence, the defendants started doing all this. On 7.3.2011, the plaintiffs found the premises to have been extensively damaged. The defendant was asked not to do so, but to no effect and therefore, the suit was brought.