R.S.A. No. 3056 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3056 of 2007 Date of Decision : 22.01.2009 Gurdial Singh ....Appellant Versus Manjit Kumar ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Naresh K.Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is defendant's appeal against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 4.11.2006 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 2.4.2007. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the appellant, who is tenant in the demised shop, is carrying out construction which is detrimental to the structure of the shop and that the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The appellant/defendant denied the same in his written statement and stated that the shop is not unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that he is not carrying out any structural changes in it. The parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent R.S.A. No. 3056 of 2007 -2- injunction, as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD 4. Whether the suit has been filed without any cause of action?OPD 5. Relief. Both the Courts below restrained the appellant from carrying out any construction and altering the structure. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he being a tenant had a right to carry out minor repairs, etc. for making the premises usable. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. Both the Courts have concluded that the building is not in a good condition. The Local Commissioner appointed for this purpose has also testified to that effect. In so far as his right to carry out the minor changes is concerned, that has been protected by observing that he has a right to approach the Rent Controller under the provisions of Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law is shown to have arisen in the present appeal also. Dismissed. 22.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss