CHANDI MAL HUF Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOOL Chand respondent is the owner of the shop in dispute in Faridabad old which is in occupation of Chandi Mal petitioner as a tenant. The respondent has filed an ejectment petition (Rent case No. 44 of 1981) against the petitioner which is pending in the Court of Rent Controller at Faridabad. On October 1, 1981, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent praying that the respondent be restrained from dispossessing him from the shop in dispute (except in due process of law). In that suit, the petitioner moved an application for temporary relief under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court vide order dated October 1, 1981, ordered that the status quo be maintained till the decision of the suit. The respondent feeling aggrieved by this order filed an appeal. He claimed that the stair-case and the roof of the shop were not a part of the tenancy in favour of the petitioner. This claim was upheld by the learned District Judge vide order dated May 26, 1982, who held that there is no question of issuing a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner against the respondent to the extent of stair-case and the roof which is in occupation of the former. The order of the trial Court was modified accordingly. It is against this order that the present revision is directed.

(2.) THE petitioner is in occupation of the shop since before 1959. He executed a rent note in favour of the respondent on October 14, 1959, wherein it was provided that in case the respondent built a room on the roof of the shop then it will not be a part of the tenancy in favour of the petitioner. Another rent note was executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent on April 20, 1968, wherein no mention was made about the competency of the respondent to construct a room on the roof of the shop. In the ejectment petition (Rent Case No. 44 of 1981) filed by the respondent a plan was attached of the property which was under tenancy with the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a certified copy of the ejectment petition as also of the plan on the file. The stairs are shown included in the premises under tenancy with the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in the ejectment petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner, the stair-case and the roof have not been shown included in the premises under tenancy of the petitioner. This contention is not factually correct.