Gurdial Singh vs Manjit Kumar on 22 January, 2009

R.S.A. No. 3056 of 2007                     -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
              CHANDIGARH


                                  R.S.A. No. 3056 of 2007

                                  Date of Decision : 22.01.2009

Gurdial Singh

                                                  ....Appellant
              Versus


Manjit Kumar

                                                  ...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
                  ....

Present : Mr. Naresh K.Manchanda, Advocate
          for the appellant.

                          .....

MAHESH GROVER, J.

This is defendant’s appeal against the judgments of the

learned trial Court dated 4.11.2006 and that of the first Appellate

Court dated 2.4.2007.

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the

appellant, who is tenant in the demised shop, is carrying out

construction which is detrimental to the structure of the shop and that

the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

The appellant/defendant denied the same in his written

statement and stated that the shop is not unfit and unsafe for human

habitation and that he is not carrying out any structural changes in it.

The parties went to trial on the following issues :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent
R.S.A. No. 3056 of 2007 -2-

injunction, as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the

present suit?OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD

4. Whether the suit has been filed without any cause of

action?OPD

5. Relief.

Both the Courts below restrained the appellant from

carrying out any construction and altering the structure.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he

being a tenant had a right to carry out minor repairs, etc. for making

the premises usable.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and

perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no

merit in the appeal. Both the Courts have concluded that the building

is not in a good condition. The Local Commissioner appointed for

this purpose has also testified to that effect. In so far as his right to

carry out the minor changes is concerned, that has been protected by

observing that he has a right to approach the Rent Controller under

the provisions of Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent

Restriction Act. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the findings

recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law is

shown to have arisen in the present appeal also.

Dismissed.

22.1.2009                                   (MAHESH GROVER)
                                               JUDGE

dss