Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee vs Sumer Chand Saini and Others

N.K. Agrawal, J.—This is a revision petition by defendant No. 2 against the orders dated September 5, 1998 and February 12, 1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhari and the Additional District Judge, Jagadhari respectively, whereby defendant No. 2 (Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee) has been directed to lay the roof on the rooms, verandah and kitchen within one month, under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code.

A suit for permanent, injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the tenancy rights of the plaintiff in the house mentioned in the plaint was filed by the plaintiff as a tenant. The plaintiff claimed himself to be initially a tenant under the father of defendant No. 1 Later on, the suit property was leased out to the plaintiff by the father of defendant No. 1 for the period of 99 years on August 29,1970. An interim order of restraint was passed against the defendants on October, 24, 1994 by the trial Court after the filing of the suit. The plaintiff filed a second application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 with the allegation that the defendant No. 2 along with its associates had, after purchasing the property, forcibly and in violation of the stay order dated October 24,1994, demolished on June 15, 1998 the roof of the two rooms, verandah and the kitchen in possession of the plaintiff as a tenant. The petitioner prayed for a direction to defendant No. 2 to lay the roof on the tenanted portion of the premises. Alternatively, he sought permission to repair the portion and to lay the roof at the expense of the defendant. The matter had been reported to the police also on that very day and an F.I.R was registered by the police. The incident was published by the newspapers also. A contempt petition was also filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought amendment of his plaint so as to add the relief of mandatory injunction. He also wanted the property to be restored back to him in view of the earlier interim order of restraint.

Defendant No. 2 has admitted that the stay order was issued on October 24, 1994 but alleged that it was not extended thereafter. No stay order was in force in 1998. It has further been stated that a rent case is pending against the plaintiff and his eviction has been sought on the ground of the property having become unfit for human habitation. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 2 had purchased the suit property from its previous owner. Demolition of the house was denied. The tenanted portion was part of a big building and the major portion had already fallen. The portion in possession of the plaintiff was old arid it fell down on June 15, 1998 due to heavy rains. Any repair by the plaintiff was opposed with the plea that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to re-build the premises.

The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 2 by stating that the roofs had fallen has admitted that the plaintiff''s petition has merit. The question which arose for consideration was whether the roofs fell down due to rains or had been pulled down by the men of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff''s allegation is that defendant No. 2, after purchasing the property from defendant No. 1, wanted to throw the plaintiff away from the premises. It is on record that an F.I.R. was promptly lodged by the plaintiff. It is also manifest that if the roofs are not allowed to be laid, it may not be possible at all for the plaintiff to reside in the premises and the purpose of the filing of the suit would stand frustrated.

In Ajmer Singh Vs. Improvement Trust Khanna and Another, , it has been observed that where the plaintiff, who was in occupation was evicted unauthorisedly, the Court may order that the plaintiff may be put back in possession of the property.

In Samir Sobhan Sanyal Vs. Tracks Trade Pvt. Ltd. and others, , it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme court that where the respondents have taken high handed action, that cannot be overlooked by the court. There also, the respondent was directed to put the appellant in possession within 24 hours.

On a consideration of the matter, it is noticed that both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that there was a prima facie case of forcible demolition. Learned counsel for defendant No. 2 has placed much reliance on the report of a local commissioner who was appointed by the Court. On perusal of that report, it is found that it relates to another occupant, Sunder Kumar. The report is, therefore, not relevant to the case of the plaintiff.

It is also found that a criminal case is pending. Nothing must be observed here so as to jeopardise the rights of defendant No. 2 in the criminal matter. Certain photographs were taken after the incident. Those photographs were taken after the incident. Those photographs clearly show that the premises in occupation of the plaintiff have been rendered wholly inhabitable. A tenant cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law. It would be unjust if the plaintiff is not allowed to stay in the premises till there is an order by a competent authority to vacate the premises. In all fairness, he has a right to get the roofs repaired or laid so as to make the rooms, verandah and the kitchen habitable.

It may also be seen that the interim order dated October 24, 1994 was not passed by the trial Court for any limited period. That order continued. It is also noticed that the plaintiff sought amendment of his plaint so as to add that relief of mandatory injunction. He wanted the property to be restored back to the earlier position.

Resultantly, in the circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are found to be appropriate and do not call for any interference. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.