GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE Vs. SUMER CHAND SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by defendant No. 2 against the orders dated September 5, 1998 and February 12, 1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhari and the Additional District Judge, Jagadhari respectively, whereby defendant No. 2 (Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee) has been directed to lay the roof on the rooms, verandah and kitchen within one month, under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) A suit for permanent, injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the tenancy rights of the plaintiff in the house mentioned in the plaint was filed by the plaintiff as a tenant. The plaintiff claimed himself to be initially a tenant under the father of defendant No. 1 Later on, the suit property was leased out to the plaintiff by the father of defendant No. 1 for the period of 99 years on August 29,1970. An interim order of restraint was passed against the defendants on October, 24, 1994 by the trial Court after the filing of the suit. The plaintiff filed a second application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 with the allegation that the defendant No. 2 along with its associates had, after purchasing the property, forcibly and in violation of the stay order dated October 24,1994, demolished on June 15, 1998 the roof of the two rooms, verandah and the kitchen in possession of the plaintiff as a tenant. The petitioner prayed for a direction to defendant No. 2 to lay the roof on the tenanted portion of the premises. Alternatively, he sought permission to repair the portion and to lay the roof at the expense of the defendant. The matter had been reported to the police also on that very day and an F.I.R was registered by the police. The incident was published by the newspapers also. A contempt petition was also filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought amendment of his plaint so as to add the relief of mandatory injunction. He also wanted the property to be restored back to him in view of the earlier interim order of restraint.

(3.) Defendant No. 2 has admitted that the stay order was issued on October 24, 1994 but alleged that it was not extended thereafter. No stay order was in force in 1998. It has further been stated that a rent case is pending against the plaintiff and his eviction has been sought on the ground of the property having become unfit for human habitation. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 2 had purchased the suit property from its previous owner. Demolition of the house was denied. The tenanted portion was part of a big building and the major portion had already fallen. The portion in possession of the plaintiff was old arid it fell down on June 15, 1998 due to heavy rains. Any repair by the plaintiff was opposed with the plea that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to re-build the premises.