CHAIN RAJ MEHTA Vs. SHANTA SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision under section 115 C. P. C. is directed against the orders of the learned Additional District Judge No. 5 Jaipur City dated 11th September, 1979 and the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, dated 31st March, 1979 refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is a chartered Accountant and is a tenant in certain premises situate at Moti Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur belonging to the respondent. THE petitioner applied for a telephone connection at his residence and the District Manager Telephones, Jaipur, on 12th March. 1979, informed the petitioner that his department was ready to instal the telephone but the respondent landlord was interfering in the same as such the telephone could not be installed. In these circumstances the petitioner filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant respondent not to interfere in the installation of the telephone connection in the residential portion of the petitioner in which he is residing as a tenant of the defendant landlord. THE petitioner also submitted an application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 C. PC. for temporary injunction directing the defendant respondent not to interfere in the installation of telephone connection during the pendency of the suit. THE application was opposed by the defendant inter-alia on the ground that the installation of telephone connection was not necessary for the residential use of the premises by the petitioner and there was no agreement made by the defendant landlord in this regard with the petitioner that she would allow the plaintiff to instal telephone connection in the premises. It was also pleaded that as the plaintiff was requiring the telephone connection in order to contact his clients he can do so only at his office premises which are situate at a different place and he cannot convert the residential portion for his office use. THE learned Munsif dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff by his order dated 3lst March, 1979. THE order of the learned Munsif was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge also by his judgment dated 11th September, 1979, hence this revision by the plaintiff.

(3.) WE have to consider the question of installation of a telephone connection in the present days of mode of living and ail round advancement of means of communication and the present day hazards of society. One cannot lose sight of the fact that Jaipur City has grown in population to nearly one million. One has to cross a distance of more than 15 Kms. for going from one end of the City to another end. The facility of telephone connection can by no stretch of imegination be said to be a luxury in these days, but it has become a necessity for those who can afford to pay for it. It is all the more necessary for professional persons, like Doctors, Lawyers, Chartered Accountants, etc etc. It is likewise necessary for the business men. For a professional man like the petitioner the telephone connection is a necessity not only at the office but at the residence also at least in a city like Jaipur. A professional man cannot remain in his office all the time and it is necessary for him to keep in contact with the clients at his residence also. That apart, it cannot be said that a telephone connection taken at the residence will not be taken in private use and will only be utilised for professional purposes. I see force in the conten-tion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the telephone can be utilised at odd hours for calling a Doctor or for talking on some urgent matters with the relations and friends. It can avoid the necessity of calling upon the friends and relations personally and many problems can be solved by merely talking on phone. If a tenant can have a right to instal electric and water connection I see no reason why a tenant can be deprived of installing a telephone connec-tion at the premises let out to him. I. fail to understaned as to how the landlord is going to be affected in any manner if a tenant instals a telephone connection in the premises let out to him except when in any particular case it might cause nuisance to the landlord. It is well known fact that in almost all big cities in India one gets a telephone connection after a long number of years and that shows that it has become a growing need of a citizen in a big city to have a telephone connection Travelling in a big city is itself a problem and much of it can safely be avoided by the use of a telephone. It has neither been seriously argued nor held by the lower Courts that by the installation of tele-phone in the suit premises the building could in any manner be damaged. The distinction pointed out by the lower appellate Court is that the use of the telephone by the petitioner with his clients who were not members of his family, had no connection whatsoever with the residential use of the premises in a peaceful manner, is wholly unreal and perverse. If a telephone connection is taken by the petitioner at his residence it will be a use by him for the purpose of residential use of the premises. I fail to understand that even if it is used by the petitioner for talking with his client how can it be said that it had no connection with his right of residing in the premises and using the premises for residential purposes. Thus if the lower Courts have decided the case on a view which is wholly perverse it would be an exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. If the approach of the lower Court was wholly wrong and contrary to the well established principles as contemplated under sec. 108 of the. Transfer of Property Act that the lessor shall be deemed to contact with the lessee that if the latter pays the rent resreved by the lease and performs the contract binding on the lessee he may hold the property during the time limited by the lease without interruption. In my view the Act of a landlord disallowing a tenant a telephone connection amounts to an interruption in holding the pro-perty by the lessee during the term of his lease. A temporary injunction is to be granted in favour of a person if he proves a prima facie case in his favour, balance of convenience and an irreparable loss in case the injunction is not granted in his favour. In deciding the question of prima facie case, the learned lower appellate Court has given a finding which is altogether perverse and also against the right conferred on a lessee under sec. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. As regards the question of irreparable loss I am clearly of the view that if the petitioner is not allowed to get the telephone installed at his residence at this stage, and if he ultimately succeeds in the suit, which in the present state of circumstances is bound to take a few years, cannot be measured in terms of money and the petitioner cannot be compensated adequalely. The reason given by the lower appellate Court in this regard that the petitioner can get one more connection in his office is absolutely erroneous. The petitioner is already having a telephone connection at his office and to ask him to have another connection at the same place would be ridiculous. That apart, the nature of the use of the telephone connection at the residence is entirely different from its use at the office premises.