RAM CHAND Vs. GORA LAL BALDEV KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was decreed and appeal therefrom was dismissed by the Additional District Judge.

(2.) M /s. Gora Lal Baldev Krishan brought a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant Ram Chand from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the shop and roof situate at Samana fully described in the heading of the plaint. As per allegation made in the plaint, it was stated that the plaintiffs are tenants under the defendant in respect of the shop in dispute at yearly rent of Rs. 600/-. It has further been stated that the roof of the shop in question is part of the tenancy in question and they have been using the same as tenants; that the defendants without any right or authority has built boundary wall and laterin upon the roof of the shop prior to filing of the suit. Since the defendant further threatened to make construction over the roof and in this manner to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have prayed for injunction against the defendant.

(3.) UNDER issue No. 1, the trial Court held that plaintiff No. 1 is not a HUF firm and as such is not a tenant of the defendant. Under issue No. 2 the Court despite noticing that there is no specific mention in the rent note Exhibit D-1 with regard to the roof and staircase to be part of the tenancy held that in view of the judgment in case reported as Bhal Singh Malik v. Dr. Nazir Singh and others, 1976 RCR 145, roof is a part of the tenancy of the shop in question and so the plaintiffs have a right to go up the roof by using a staircase. Accordingly, in view of the finding of the Court under issue No. 2, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed as prayed for.