RAM MURTI Vs. B K CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Shimla, dated 8th January, 1998.

(2.) Plaintiff B.K. Chawla, who is respondent in this appeal, laid a suit before the learned trial Court for permanent prohibitory injunction and also for mandatory injunction, on the allegation that he is in possession of the premises known as "House No. 82/2" Moti Maszid, Ganj Road, Shimla, as tenant under Punjab Wakf Board. The floor immediately above his premises, known as House No. 81/ 1, 81/2 and 81/3 are in occupation of the defendant, the appellant herein, as tenant. Both the plaintiff and defendants are the tenants of Punjab Wakf Board.

(3.) The grievance of the plaintiff was that though the premises were let out to the defendant for residential purposes but he changed the user and starting using the tenanted premises for commercial purposes. The defendant stored large quantity of merchandise like serials, oils etc. As the building is about 100 years of old, the walls become out of plumb, the floor started sagging and wooden frames of the doors have de-shaped. The plaintiff approached the defendant, several times, requesting him not to store heavy materials in the residential premises but without any positive response from the defendant. The plaintiff complained to the Municipal Corporation, Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, owner landlord of the building "Punjab Wakf Board" and even the police, but failed to evoke any response from them. The plaintiff also alleged that he had an approach to his house through the wooden stairs, leading to the top storey, and that approach has been blocked by the defendant by raising a wall, replacing the tin sheet door closing approach to his house. The plaintiff prayed for permanent prohibitory injunction with the direction to the defendant not to use the premises for commercial purpose or to store merchandise in the premises in his occupation. The plaintiff also sought a mandatory injunction with a direction to the defendant to restore the stair case, after demolishing the wall.