Civil Revision No. 2487 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2487 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.11.2009 Mohd. Hanif ....Petitioner Versus S. Sheetal Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 10504-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copy of order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh. CM No. 10505-CII of 2009 Allowed. Annexures P-1 and P-2 are taken on record. CR No. 2487 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands accepted. The plaintiff/respondent brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from raising unauthorised construction over the property in dispute, and from installing cotton Civil Revision No. 2487 of 2009 (O&M) -2- machine, on the plea that it was likely to create nuisance in the residential area. It was also pleaded case of the plaintiff/respondent that prior to filing of the suit, on a report made to the Commissioner, the defendant/petitioner was restrained from running the machine in the residential area. But in spite of the order, he wants to run the cotton machine and create nuisance over the property. Suit was contested. The defendant/petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, as also the ownership of the plaintiff/respondent over the property in dispute. He further claimed that he was running the cotton machine since 1989. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/respondent was not owner of the property in dispute and had no locus standi to maintain the suit. The learned Court also held, that the cotton machine was being run since the year 1989, therefore, there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/respondent to seek injunction. The learned lower appellate Court accepted the appeal in view of the material placed on record, showing the ownership of the plaintiff, i.e. house tax receipt showing payment by his father Faquir Chand. Thus, it was proved that it was Faquir Chand, who was the owner of the property in dispute, which was to be inherited by the plaintiff/respondent as one of the legal heirs of Faquir Chand. The learned Court held the plaintiff/respondent to be the owner of the suit property, thus, entitled to maintain the suit. The learned appellate Court came to the conclusion that defendant/petitioner could not raise any construction over the suit Civil Revision No. 2487 of 2009 (O&M) -3- property, nor run cotton machine, as it creates nuisance in the residential area on account of the pollution created by it. Appeal was accepted. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends, that the learned lower appellate Court committed an error in accepted the appeal by ignoring the fact that the cotton machine was being run by the defendant/petitioner since the year 1989, therefore, there was no occasion to restrain him from running the cotton machine. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was only to repair the construction which already existed and was not raising any new construction. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even if for the sake or arguments, it is accepted that the petitioner was running the cotton machine since 1989, it could not be allowed to continue in absence of any licence, particularly in the residential area. Admittedly the machine creates pollution, the learned lower appellate Court was justified in restraining the petitioner from running cotton machine in the disputed premises. Needless to say, that the petitioner being tenant cannot be allowed to either raise construction or even repair, unless repair is essential, in that case, he has to approach the Court in accordance with law for getting it repaired through the landlord. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) November 25, 2009 Judge R.S.