KAMLESH BHATIA Vs. MEENA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner/defendant against the order passed by learned District Judge, Solan on 8.3.2016 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 15-S/14 of 2012 whereby he allowed the appeal and set-aside the order dated 26.12.2011 passed by the learned trial Court and allowed the stay application and restrained the petitioner/defendant from making any additions, alterations effecting/carrying out any major repairs in the tenanted premises as well as from interfering or causing obstruction in the ingress and egress of the respondent/plaintiff and her employees on the vacant portion of the suit land as well as from preventing the construction and development work which is being carried out by the respondent/plaintiff over the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 1390/760 and 1393/763 till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant revision are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant seeking to restrain her permanently from making any additions, alterations, changes, effecting/ carrying out any repair in the premises consisting of three rooms set i.e. three rooms, kitchen, toilet and bath room existing on the ground floor of the building situated over the land comprising Khasra No. 761 (for short tenanted premises) and from interfering or causing obstruction in the ingress and egress of the plaintiff and her employees to the other portion of the land comprising Khasra Nos. 1390/760, 1393/763, situated in Mauja Dehun, Pargana Bharoli Khurd, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was averred that the plaintiff is co-owner in possession of the suit land alongwith tenanted premises which was purchased by her from Homesh Bahadur Saxena through a registered sale deed regarding which the mutation was attested on 23.7.2007 and ever since then she was in possession of the suit property as owner. It was further averred that there was an old and dilapidated house in the aforesaid property over Khasra No. 761 which was earlier owned by Homesh Bahadur Saxena and it was in this building that the suit premises were situate which had been let out to the defendant as tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- and the said rent was increased from time to time and in the year 1995, the defendant was paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was averred that despite repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff and her predecessor-ininterest to pay the rent from the month of May, 1995, the defendant had miserably failed to pay and tender due rent despite the fact that the building was situated in a prime area. It was also averred that in addition to the defendant, there were other tenants in the premises who had not been paying the rent to the plaintiff. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for restraining the defendant from permanently making any additions, alterations, changes effecting/carrying out repairs in the disputed premises on the ground that the defendant refused to allow the plaintiff to inspect the tenanted premises without prior notice and the plaintiff was having no intention to raise the construction in the other part of the suit land without causing any damage to the tenanted premises and in the building in which the tenanted premises was situate, but the defendant with the help of other tenants was not allowing the plaintiff to start the development activity in the vacant land to which the defendant had no right. At the same time, it was averred that the defendant is having no right, title or interest to carry out major repairs, additions and alterations in the tenanted premises.

(3.) The suit as well as stay application was contested by the defendant by filing written statement/reply denying therein that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the building in which the tenanted premises was situate and it was further denied that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land. However, it was not denied that the defendant had been inducted as tenant in the tenanted premises by the previous owner in the year 1992. It was denied that the building in which the tenanted premises was situated was in dilapidated and ruinous condition. It was averred that the defendant was in possession of the tenanted premises as also in possession of the vacant portion of the suit land and she alongwith Ms. Raksha is residing in these premises. It was denied that the rent of the tenanted premises was fixed in the year 1995 at Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was further averred that the previous owner of the suit property Sh. Homesh Bahadur Saxena had already transferred the title of the suit property in favour of the defendant and as such, he could not have sold the suit property to anybody else much less the plaintiff, who therefore, had no right to enter in the tenanted premises. It was further averred that the defendant has purchased the suit land and structure situated thereupon except two rooms which was in possession of Iqbal Singh and Shyam Lal Gupta in the year 2006 through an agreement which was concluded in presence of Neeraj Jain and Harish Kumar for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was paid to the previous owner by the defendant and thereafter it was the defendant who now is the owner in possession of the suit property.