Sh. Yogender Pal Bhatia vs Sh. Rajesh & Others
2000 Latest Caselaw 706 Del

ORDER

Khan, J.

1. Appellant is the tenant of premises No.141/3, Pul Mithai, Teliwara, Delhi belonging to respondent No. 3. He filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs as damages and for mandatory injunction against respondents wherein he filed an application under Section 151 CPC requiring them to carry out necessary repairs in the premises. His case was that respondents had raised illegal construction over the tenanted premises resulting in cracks in the roof and walls, leading to water seepage causing damage to his goods.

2. Trial court on consideration of the matter noticed that the respondent had repaired the hole of the roof during the pendency of the suit and that appellant had failed to show any exceptional circumstance or hardship warranting grant of relief prayed for by him. It, accordingly, declined to grant the requisite relief and dismissed the application. Appellant has filed this appeal against this order.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon certain documents on record including the report of the Checking officer of MCD to show that walls of the tenanted shop had developed cracks and that there was some water leakage due to the construction carried over it.

4. Learned counsel for respondents challenged the maintainability of the appeal. According to her impugned order was passed on an application under Section 151 CPC against which only a revision would lie. On merits she submitted that appellant was only trying to harass respondents by involving them in the litigation and to ward off his eviction from the premises. She made a statement at bar that appellant could as well undertake necessary repairs himself, if required.

5. The controversy about the maintainability of this appeal apart, it does not appear that trial court had committed any illegality or impropriety in declining grant of interim relief to appellant. The court had rightly observed that once the hole in the roof was plugged during the pendency of the suit, grant of interim relief would tantamount to grant of the whole relief of mandatory injunction prayed for by the appellant.

6. I am in agreement with the reasoning advanced by Trial court and find no scope for interference. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.