RAM GOPAL BANARSI DASS Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of three petitions, Civil Revisions Nos. 790,1259 and 1488 of 1984 as all of them involve an identical question of law. For the purpose of this judgment, the facts of Civil Revision No. 790 of 1984 have been noticed.

(2.) Shop-cum-Flat No.70, Grain Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh, is on lease with the petitioner. The respondent, owner of share of the said shop, brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the tenant from using any portion of the demised premises for running karyana business, sale of dairy products and crackers alleging that such a use was against the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development/Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Punjab Act) and that because of the said misuse, Chandigarh Administration had issued a notice to show cause as to why the said premises be not resumed. Along with the suit, he also filed an application under O.39 Rr.1 and 2 read with S.151, Civil P.C. for an ad interim injunction to the same effect. The trial Court holding that the shop in dispute could be used only for carrying on business of sale or purchase of grains granted ad interim injunction restraining the petitioner from carrying on karyana business and the sale of crackers and dairy products. The tenant went in appeal against the order of the trial Court but having failed has come up in this revision.

(3.) The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in view of the provisions of S.41, Cls. (g) and (i), Specific Relief Act, (for short, the Act) no ad interim injunction could be granted to prevent the continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced or when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agent has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the Court. The basis for this argument was that the demised premises from the very inception of the tenancy were being used apart from the sale and purchase of grains, for karyana business and the sale of crackers and dairy products with the knowledge and consent of the landlord who has thus acquiesced in the present use of the demised premises for more than a decade.