TATA OIL MILLS COMPANY LTD. Vs. MANMOHAN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, with enhanced appellate powers, dated 23rd September, 1981, whereby the order of the trial Court granting temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using the premises as godown and for running a transport company was maintained.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent has filed a suit in the trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendant -petitioner from carrying on the business of a transport company, from using as a godown -the premises known as one large hall and two small rooms in 116 Industrial Area, Chandigarh, alleging that he is owner and landlord of the said premises and that the defendant has taken the said premises on rent under an oral agreement of lease undertaking that the demised premises shall be used in industrial purposes alone for which the premises is meant and that the defendant will abide by the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952 and the rules, notifications and bye -laws made thereunder. But the defendant has started using the said premises for running a transport company by sub letting the premises to one Mr. Goyal and the remaining portion is being used for godown purposes by storing glycerin , etc, which is a hazardous goods and user of which is contrary to law and in violation of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder it was further alleged in the plaint that the Chandigarh Administration had issued notice dated 29th May, 1981 to the respondent plaintiff regarding the contravention of the terms of conveyance deed/allotment letter, where by he has been threatened that the building in suit would be resumed, and a suit under section 8 -A of the Act for forfeiting 10% of the consideration money of the site will be instituted. It has been further alleged that in case the defendant did not stop the misuse of the premises, the building shall be resumed and the plaintiff will be deprived of the property, which he has built after incurring huge expenditure. In this way the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and may be harassed and prosecuted unnecessarily for the misuse done by the defendant. The application was resisted by the defendant petitioner. After hearing the parties, the trial Court accepted the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff for temporary injunction. In appeal the lower appellate Court has affirmed the order of the trial Court Dissatisfied with the same the defendant has come up in revision in this Court.

(3.) IT was next contended that in case the plaintiff himself rented out the premises for the purposes of godown, including inter alia for storing any material, finished or unfinished products and packing material, then, according to the Learned Counsel, the plaintiff is estopped by his conduct to fib a suit for injunction against the defendant as to restrain him from using the premises for a purpose for which the Plaintiff himself had agreed by a written agreement In support of his contention, Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Smt. Uma Kumar v. Jaswant Rai Chopra, (1960) 62 P.L.R 460. Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran v. H.C. Shukral, 1972 R.C.J. 289.