ADARSH P. JAUHAR Vs. GULSHAN JAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No.2, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below, has filed the instant regular second appeal in a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction.

(2.) Facts first.

(3.) Plaintiff -respondent filed the suit for mandatory injunction against Anoop Singh -defendant No.1, who was co -lessee of the plaintiff, Adarsh P. Jauhar - defendant No.2, who is present appellant and defendant Nos.3 to 5 who were the original owners and landlords of the suit property. It was a suit for perpetual, mandatory and permanent injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking mandatory injunction against defendants No.1 and 2, namely, Anoop Singh and present appellant not to remove the signboards -cum -name plates Mark 'AB' from the main entrance of the ground floor of S.C.O. No.11, Sector 17 -E, Chandigarh. It was also sought that portion from 'D' to 'E' may be directed not to be closed. Further direction was sought not to obstruct the electricity supply from place 'C' and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to hand over the vacant possession of the portion 'DASLN' as described in the site plan. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff -respondent that there was an unregistered lease deed dated 19.05.1977 executed between the previous owners of the suit property i.e. defendants -respondents No.3 to 5 as landlords and plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 -Anoop Singh as lessees. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that in violation of clause 11 of the lease deed dated 19.05.1977, defendant No.2 took forcible possession of the suit property. Defendant No.1 -Anoop Singh was under legal obligation, to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, in view of clause 11 of the lease deed, plaintiff being his co -lessee. The forcible and illegal possession of defendant No.2 left the plaintiff with no other option except to file the present suit.