AVTAR KRISHAN Vs. RATTAN LAL GONDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/ petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The prayer made was that defendant/ respondent be restrained from interfering in any manner into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/ petitioner over a shop situated at Peer Mitha. Jammu. The description of these premises are given in the heading of the plaint.

(2.) IN para 5 of the plaintiff it is submitted that the plaintiff has become owner by adverse possession. Alongwith the suit an application has been filed. In this a prayer has been made that the plaintiff be permitted to repair the said premises. It is stated that the roof alongwith backwall of the suit shop is in a dilapidated condition and is likely to collapse at any time. This application was filed on 3 -3 -1998. The respondent/defendant filed the written statement. The plea taken by him is that the plaintiff was inducted in the premises by one Ravinder Kumar. It is submitted that the plaintiff is a sub -lesser and therefore, he has no legal right to continue in the premises. It is also submitted that the defendant would be taking steps with a view to recover the possession by restoring to the provisions under the J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act.

(3.) SO far as the interim application is concerned the stand taken by the respondent is that the plaintiff/ petitioner has no locus standi to file the suit. It is submitted that the plaintiff in his capacity as tenant cannot make any structural changes. This interim application was decided by the trial court. It has been observed by the trial court that on account of the provisions contained in Section 27 of the J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act the appropriate relief can be sought from the judicial forum constituted and available under the said Act.