DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. SWARNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a chequered history. In order to trace it, I have to go to agreement dated August 3, 1973 (Ext. PA). It was entered into between the petitioner and respondents No 1 and 2 The third respondent is not only General Power of Attorney of these two respondents but also husband of respondent No. 1, Sent. Swarna Kumari.

(2.) By virtue of this agreement, the petitioner gave the possession of the premises namely, upper flat of Bilaspur Vakilkhana, Tilak Nagar, Shimla -5 in order to enable them to re -construct the building As a sequal to the vacation of these premises by the petitioner, the respondents started construction and then completed it. The agreement stipulated that on completion of the construction, the respondents would place the premises in occupation of the petitioner as a tenant, the rent to be settled in accordance with scheduled rates of the Public Works Department to the Government of Himachal Pradesh As to the completion of the construction, the petitioner was to be informed by the respondents for taking possession thereof.

(3.) After the construction of the building, when the possession was not given to the petitioner, a suit for specific performance of the contract was preferred in the Court of the Senior Sub -Judge, Shimla, who assigned the same for disposal to Sub -Judge, First Class (3), Shimla. The key purpose of filing the suit was to seek the possession of the premises from the respondents and in the meantime to restrain them from renting out the premises to some -one else. By way of interim measure, application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code was also filed The trial Court passed interim order which was ultimately confirmed on July 8, 1977 after hearing the parties. It is worthwhile to record here that by this order, the trial Court directed the respondents not to let out one suite in this building. The respondents challenged this order before the District Judge where the matter was withdrawn on the statement of the respondents that one suite in the building would not be let out till the disposal of the suit in question. This suite was in the self occupation of the respondents.