Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

                    c)        award the costs of the suit to the plaintiffs;

                    d)        pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and

                    proper under the circumstances of the case."
5. Defendant no. 1, M/S Insulation and Electrical Products Pvt. Ltd. in their written statement has submitted that there are two difference tenancies in the name of respective plaintiffs and they are separately paying rent for their respective portions. Defendant submit that there is no open passage in the West as alleged by plaintiff. It is the factory of defendant no. 1 in the West for last 28 years and is under the tenancy of the defendant no. 2. Defendant deny that there is a passage of 7' width and submit that the tenanted premises of plaintiff and factory of defendant no. 1 are immediately adjacent to each other. It is denied that the six windows existed at the time of inception of tenancy of answering defendants. The plaintiffs have illegally opened the said windows towards the premises of defendant no. 1 about 2 to 3 years back and the defendant no.

1 did not object to same to maintain cordial relations with plaintiff. The plaintiffs have opened the said windows without any legal right and it is denied that these windows are in existence for last more than 30 years. Plaintiffs have come into the possession of the tenanted premises much after the tenancy of defendant no. 1 and it is denied that plaintiffs have been enjoying free light and fresh air from the alleged windows since the inception of tenancy in the name of M/S Industrial Packers. In fact the light and air etc. of the plaintiffs factory was from their front side only and by opening the alleged windows towards the eastern side the plaintiffs have invaded the Anand Kumar Aggarwal vs. Insulation & Electrical Products CS­324/10/88 5 OF 11 rights of privacy of defendant no. 1. The defendant no 1 has denied that he in collusion with defendant no. 2 had raised any unauthorised construction over the open passage and has also disputed the correctness of the site plan. It is denied that any of the window was closed by defendant. Defendant submits that any construction/iron angle at the urinal had been in existence since the inception of tenancy and there is no kind of leakage towards the factory of plaintiff. It is also denied that an alleged open passage has been blocked by putting garbage and waste material or that the defendant has raised unauthorised construction of a room towards northern side of the alleged open passage. Defendant has further denied that he has stored considerable building material on spot. The windows in question have been opened by plaintiff illegally and without any legal right and the submission that the factory is left in complete darkness and in unhygienic condition is far from truth as there is sufficient provision of light and air in the factory from front and other sides. Thus the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable and should be dismissed.

6. Defendant no. 2 has objected to the suit of plaintiff on ground that he is not a necessary party as the allegations are concerning defendant no. 1 only. It is submitted that the tenancy of the plaintiff is not single but there are two separate tenancies. Defendant no. 2 denies that there are six windows opening for last more than 30 years towards the eastern side and defendant no. 2 submits that plaintiff's must have made some illegal windows besides additions and alternations. Defendant no. 2 is not having knowledge neither has given any consent to defendant no. 1 for the alleged constructions as alleged by plaintiff however it is denied that plaintiffs have any easementary right in respect of the six windows and it is submitted that plaintiffs cannot claim any right by making illegal addition, alternation or construction in the property in question. Hence the suit of plaintiff should be dismissed.

Thus from the testimony of PW1 it is proved that the tenancy in respect of suit premises was in existence since year 1969.It is immaterial if later on two tenancies were created in favour of plaintiffs herein because the suit premises are same and the rights that were available to M/S Industrial Packers, the earlier tenant were transferred jointly in name of plaintiffs herein and it is not required for them to file two separate suits for same cause of action.
DW1, Sh. Ashwini Kumar has been cross examined by the counsel for plaintiff wherein he has admitted that premises in the tenancy of defendant no. 1 is one hall and veranda but submits that he is not knowing the exact area of the said hall. Defendant no. 1 stated to have purchased Anand Kumar Aggarwal vs. Insulation & Electrical Products CS­324/10/88 8 OF 11 the property under his tenancy from defendant no. 2 but has not placed on record any sale deed to show the dimensions under the ownership of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 has denied that there is any common passage 7' wide on the Eastern side of plaintiff's property and submits that same is covered by tin shed. However, in view of the fact that defendant has failed to show the extent of area under his ownership thus it cannot be said that the 7' wide area adjacent to the eastern side of property of plaintiff is not the common passage. The contention of defendant that they allowed said windows to be opened towards common passage due to friendly terms with plaintiff is not maintainable as there is no evidence on record to show that the defendant No.2 (landlord of suit premises) or defendant No.1 ever objected at the first instance when those windows were opened by plaintiff. Plaintiffs have proved that they have been enjoying free light and air through the windows opening towards the common passage since year 1969 .Plaintiff has filed the site plan and the photographs to show that the access to light and air was obstructed by the construction of tin sheds moreover, construction of urinal in the common passage adjacent to the wall and window of factory of plaintiff has resulted in inconvenience and diminishing of the quality of the premises. The plaintiffs have been deprived of wholesome,healthy and safe enjoyment of their tenanted premises due to the constructions and obstructions created by them in the common passage. However from the evidence brought on record it is not proved that defendant no 2 had in any manner colluded with defendant no 1. It is also not proved that defendant No 2 raised or facilitated raising of said unauthorised constructions. Thus this issue is decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff are entitled for relief of permanent injunction, as prayed.