MADANLAL SUHALKA Vs. RAKESH & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel.

(2.) This petition is directed against the order dated 10/2/2010, whereby, the learned trial court partly allowed the temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff tenant and granted status quo order against the defendants. The plaintiff tenant approached this Court being aggrieved of the said order on the ground that in the original rent note as well as sale deed executed by the landlord in favour of defendant no.1 - Rakesh, it was clearly stipulated that for the shop on the ground floor sold by the landlord-Mahideep Vashistha to Rakesh, the right of access through staircase made at the North South side of the said shop shall be maintained by the purchaser Rakesh. The plaintiff approached the Court with the case that the said purchaser Rakesh after purchase of the shop admeasuring 335.4 sq ft. with the height of 11 ft. 10 inches removed the staircase passing through the said area of shop on the ground floor and provided alternative staircase from outside the said premises from backside for the landlord and seller Mahideep Vashistha and other tenants on the first floor and, therefore, the suit for injunction was filed. The learned trial court partly allowed the injunction application vide order dated 10/2/2010, which was upheld by the learned appellate court also vide order dated 23/5/2011.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner plaintiff with the help of the photographs and other relevant documents sought to explain that even the landlord has also filed affidavit in his support that the construction so raised has damaged the rooms at first floor to some extent. He further submitted that since right to access through the staircase from the North South side was stipulated in the rent note as well as in the sale deed, the purchaser was not entitled to remove the said staircase and provide alternative access through backside, which is lesser in width.