Civil Revision No. 7805 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7805 of 2011 Date of decision: 22.12.2011. Ramesh Gaind & another ...Appellants Versus Kamaljit Singh & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA. Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advpcate for the petitioner. ***** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J (ORAL). 1. The Petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 5.12.2011 as per certified copy of the order (wrongly mentioned as 5.11.2011 in the typed copy) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh in execution proceedings. Vide the said order, the Executing Court while taking into consideration the report of the Local Commissioner dated 27.8.2010 has noticed that the judgment debtor-petitioner had removed the glazed tiles but after removal of glazed tiles he had placed upon the chips floor, wooden tiles in the demised premises after using a plastic sheet and a layer of foam. Accordingly, the Civil Judge has directed that the judgment debtor would remove the wooden flooring within fifteen days and restore the flooring to its original condition and furnish an affidavit in compliance of the order on or before 18.12.2011 as he has no right to place any wooden flooring upon the floor of the demised premises without the permission of the landlord or the Court. Civil Revision No. 7805 of 2011 -2- *** 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently placed reliance upon Babu Manmohan Das Shah and others Vs. Bishu Das AIR 1967 SC 643 that laying of wooden flooring on top of the tiles would not amount to any material alteration. This submission of the petitioner, however, in facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be accepted. The parties inter-se have a chequered history of litigation and in a suit filed for permanent injunction, the judgment debtor/petitioner was restrained from breaking or making any structure within the tenanted premises and was further directed to restore the premises to its original condition vide judgment and decree dated 10.6.2002. In appeal filed by the judgment debtor/petitioner the said finding was upheld and the Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh passed the following order wherein glazed tiles affixed on the floor of the demise premises were ordered to be restored:- “The defendant is restrained from making alterations and structures over the demised premises except in due course of law. The defendant is also directed to restore the demise premises in its original condition. To make compliance of the directions of the Court, the defendant shall only remove the glazed tile affixed on the floor of the demised premises. The defendant is given two months time to remove the glazed tiles from the floor of the demised. Decree sheet be prepared. The Trial Court file be sent back. File of this Court be consigned to the record room.” 3. This order was further upheld in Regular Second Appeal No.5387 of 2003 by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2003 and the appeal of the judgment debtor was dismissed by holding that the defendant had miserably failed to prove that they affixed the tiles after seeking permission Civil Revision No. 7805 of 2011 -3- *** of the plaintiff. The SLP No.4179 of 2004 against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed on 7.3.2008 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. It is in such background that the present application was filed by the landlord and on the report of the Local Commissioner it has been found that after removal of the glazed tiles, wooden flooring had been affixed. According, a direction had been given for removal of wooden flooring and restoring the flooring in its original condition in execution proceedings. In view of the background of the case, no fault can be found with the impugned order directing the removal of wooden flooring since the matter has been finalised between the parties. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. December 22, 2011 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka JUDGE