SOHAN LAL Vs. SURINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF -petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') filed a suit in the trial Court with the allegation that he was a tenant in Shop No. 1 situated in Plot No. 22, Industrial Area, Guhla Road, Cheeka; that Smt. Shakuntla mother of Surinder, defendant No. 1 is the owner of that shop as also shop No. 2; that shop No. 2 is in possession of Surinder, defendant No. 1-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'); that the respondent had installed a cotton ginning and 'rui Pinza' machine which is run with the help of electric motor and diesel engine; that the working of the said machine causes loud noise and vibration and as such is a nuisance to the petitioner. This suit filed was for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from creating nuisance by running the said machine. Petitioner had further averred in the petition that the respondent had shifted the machine from the godown which is at the back of shops No. 1 and 2 to Shop No. 2 because there is a litigation pending between Shakuntla Devi and the petitioner. Shakuntla Devi had filed an application under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for fixation of fair rent of shop No. 1.

(2.) NOTICE of this application was issued to the defendant-respondent. An application under 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. was also filed for temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit, restraining the respondent from operating the machine. Trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner Shri M. S. Dhillon, Advocate, with a direction to inspect the spot and report whether any nuisance was being caused to the petitioner on account of the running of machine etc. Local Commissioner submitted his report before the Trial Court.

(3.) I have perused the pleadings of the parties, gone through the report of the Local Commissioner and heard the counsel for the parties.