PYARE LAL PURI Vs. SHAM LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a tenant of some portion of the house at the first floor owned by Mohan Lal. After his death the house was sold in two lots, one in favour of Bachan Singh and Narain Singh and other to the defendants, Sham Lal and Smt. Shanta Rani. The tenanted premises fell to the share of Bachan Singh and Narain Singh. However, the first two steps of the staircase which led to the tenanted premises fell to the share of the defendants. They demolished those steps and instead constructed another two steps on the drain in the street. Inspite of that the tenant filed the present suit to get the original steps restored and to restrain the defendants from interfering with the use of those two steps. Alongwith the suit, he filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, for an interim injunction to the same effect. The prayer was declined by the trial Court and its order confirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated April 23, 1982.

(2.) The view taken by the courts below is that the staircase did not form part of the tenanted premises and the tenant only had the right of its user to approach the tenanted premises. That facility has not been completely denied to him and has been provided by constructing two steps over the drain in the street. It was, therefore, held that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of ad interim injunction. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that he had a right to use the staircase as it is existed when the premises were let out to him by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. It would not be advisable for me to express any definite opinion on this matter because that would effect the interest of the parties in the main suit. As no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction has been pointed out and the impugned order is attacked only on merit of the controversy between the parties, no case has been made out for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the facility of ingress and egress to the tenanted premises having not been denied no irreparable injury could possibly be caused by the non grant of the ad interim injunction.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.