- (1.) This Court has heard the Learned Advocates for the respective parties.
(2.) The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows: The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit praying for a decree for khas possession by evicting the defendant from the 'ka' schedule premises to the plaint and also for a decree for mesne profits. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the cemented urinal (ka- 1 schedule to the plaint). The plaintiff alleged inter alia in the plaint that the defendant was a defaulter since January 1978, that the defendant intentionally broke and removed the parapet wall of the roof at the time of defendant's daughter's marriage in May 1980 without the consent of the plaintiff and the defendant also removed the side wall of the skylight causing material deterioration of the suit premises. It was also alleged that the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for mandatory injunction and the plaintiff got a decree for permanent mandatory injunction whereby the defendants were directed to restore original position of the parapet wall of the roof, that the defendant without any consent of the plaintiff constructed one urinal on the roof with cement mortar and brick and such construction is of permanent nature. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had violated the provisions of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff also pleaded reasonable requirement of the suit premises for own use and occupation. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant has damaged the entrance door by cutting the same and making a hole in it for the purpose of fixing a letter-box causing waste to the property. The plaintiff further pleaded that ejectment notice was served upon the defendant but the defendant did not vacate and, accordingly, the suit was filed.
(3.) The defendant contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. According to the defendant/appellant the plaintiff himself broke some portion of the parapet wall for open and/or easy access to a certain room at the time of marriage of the defendant's daughter. According to the defendant the plaintiff himself arranged for construction of the urinal on the second floor. The defendant denied that he removed the side wall of the skylight and he stated that he did not violate any of the provisions of Clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for own use and occupation. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.;