IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 3037 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.2.2010 Om Parkash. ....... Appellant. Versus Jaswant Singh Bedi. ....... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri Suresh Goel, Advocate for the appellant. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 26.3.2008 and 8.4.2009 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala and the Additional District Judge, Barnala. C.M.No.9101-C of 2009 has been moved for restraining the defendant- respondent from effecting any kind of repair or change the nature of the suit property and also from installing any air conditioner or aluminum gate in the property in dispute during the pendency thereof. The plaintiff-appellant, who is the landlord, had filed a suit seeking to restrain the respondent from effecting any kind of renovation and R.S.A.No.3037 of 2009 (O&M) -2- .... effecting any kind of repair which would result in changing the nature of the suit property. He had pleaded that the building in question was in a dilapidated condition and was unfit for human habitation. The respondent, in his written statement, admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant & himself. It was averred that he was in possession of the suit property since 30.11.1962 at a monthly rent of Rs.780/-. He denied that the building was in dilapidated condition and pleaded that the appellant himself was residing in it and the suit has been filed on frivolous grounds. It was further pleaded that only alteration that he wants to carry out is to fix the aluminum fitting & glass so as to install an air conditioner in order to facilitate his customers. The trial Court, after appraisal of the entire evidence on record, partly decreed the suit of the appellant and restrained the respondent from carrying out any alteration except after taking recourse to law, but granted him liberty to install an air conditioner and also to install aluminum fitting with glass at the entrance subject to the condition that he will not damage the shop in question in any manner. Feeling dis-satisfied, the appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed the first appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the permission granted to the respondent would result in changing the nature of the suit property and, therefore, the impugned judgments may be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that the appeal is totally R.S.A.No.3037 of 2009 (O&M) -3- .... frivolous. The respondent has categorically been restrained from changing the nature of the suit property which was the prayer made by the appellant and mere installation of air conditioner and the aluminum fitting with glass at the entrance will not amount to alteration in the nature of the suit property. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court and the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. C.M.No.9101-C of 2009 is also dismissed in view of the above. February 10,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge