BIMAL RAI Vs. LAJJA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Lajja Kumari filed three different suits against different defendants for ejectment and recovery of rent. Alongwith the suits, she filed applications under Order 39 Rules 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying for injunction restraining the defendants in the suits from carrying on the commercial activities in the suit property. It was averred by the plaintiff that the commercial use of the premises is not permissible and the defendants despite notice failed to stop the misuser. The Haryana Urban Development Authority has already resumed the property and is intending to take eviction proceedings against the plaintiff as well as the respondents.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants. According to the defendants the property was rented out for commercial purposes and it was not disputed that the commercial activities were being carried on in the suit property. The very right of the plaintiff to recover the possession was challenged as the Haryana Urban Development Authority has resumed the property. Various other pleas were also taken by the respondents. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 6th April, 1998 dismissed the application of the plaintiff for injunction in all the three suits. Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff filed appeal before the learned first appellate Court. All the three appeals preferred by the plaintiff were accepted and the order of the learned trial Court was set aside, vide order dated 25th September, 1998, giving rise to three revisions.

(3.) The parties to the suit are at issue in regard to the purpose of letting the suit property as well as whether the plaintiff is entitled to eviction on the grounds pleaded by her. These are the controversies, which have to be decided by the learned trial Court upon the conclusion of the evidence by the parties to the suit and not at this stage.