- (1.) The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below in a suit for mandatory injunction filed by her. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the defendants be directed to allow the plaintiff to raise construction of 3 feet wide staircase, at the place marked as ABCD, shown in the site plan, to reach the roof of the shop in question.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants and it was claimed by them that the aforesaid portion is a part and parcel of the tenanted premises and therefore, plaintiff had no right to construct the staircase as desired by her. Both the courts below have held that the verandah in question, where the staircase was sought to be constructed by the plaintiff, was a part of the tenanted portion with the defendants. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and her appeal failed before the learned first appellate court.
(3.) Shri Jagdish Manchanda, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment dated November 25, 1991, passed in R.S.A.No.803 of 1979, wherein it has been held that roof of the shop in question was not a part of the tenanted premises. On that basis, Shri Manchanda argues that the plaintiff had a right to raise the construction of staircase to reach the roof.;