AMAR SINGH Vs. AMRIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question raised in this appeal is whether a suit for injunction is maintainable in view of Section 10 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act') conferring a right on the tenant to seek restoration of amenities enjoyed by him, if the same are cut off or withheld by the landlord.

(2.) THE factual matrix is that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from obstructing the passage of the plaintiff and his sweeperess through the main street and the common passage shown as point 'A' in the site plan annexed with the plaint. The plaintiff claimed to be a tenant under Smt. Daljit Kaur widow of Shiv Singh. The house was alleged to be tacitly demarcated by way of a partition between defendant Amar Singh and the landlord Smt. Daljit Kaur. The plaintiff's predecessor was inducted as a tenant by Smt. Daljit Kaur in the premises in dispute and the plaintiff continued to be the tenant after the death of his predecessor in respect of the portion marked blue in the site plan. The tenanted premises were of four rooms and one kitchen with courtyard. The common passage to the courtyard was through the door at point 'A' form the main street. It was jointly used by the plaintiff, his sweeperess as well as the defendants. The sweeperess used to pass through the said passage after cleaning the latrine on the first floor in occupation of the plaintiff. There was a wooden staircase placed in the courtyard for going to the first floor near the door of the southern room in occupation of the plaintiff. This was the only passage available to the sweeperess to go and come for cleaning the latrine on the first floor of tenanted premises. The plaintiff claimed the acquisition of a right of easement by prescription.

(3.) THE courts below came to the conclusion that the site in dispute was a passage and the plaintiff had right to use the same, though no right of easement by prescription vested in the plaintiff. The plaintiff was found to be entitled to the relief of injunction.