VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the defendant- petitioner against the order of injunction passed by the learned trial Court as confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh-II. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that Gurcharan Singh Brar one of the co-owners of the suit property filed a suit stating therein that the basement of the building was meant for store and the ground floor for shop while the first and second floors thereof were meant for office as per the conditions of allotment. The basement of the building was rented out by the respondent-plaintiffs to the petitioner-defendant for running a store. However, the defendant started running a discotheque club under the name and style of 'Aerizzona' and thus changed its user and also carried out structural changes in the building by making cabins and by raising a partition wall.
(2.) IN view of the violation committed by the tenant-petitioner, the Estate Officer, Chandigarh issued a notice under Rule 10 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Site and Building Rules, 1973 for the change of user for running business of discotheque club. The petitioner-defendant was asked to remove the misuse of the building vide order dated 5.10.1989, the Estate Officer cancelled the lease in favour of the landlord-respondent and resumed the building. The appeal was filed by the respondent-landlord to the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, who granted time upto 30.11.2001 for removal of misuse and violations as a condition for restoration of lease of the building. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that in spite of the request having been made to the defendant to remove the misuse and violations to avoid resumption of building altogether, he has not done so. The plaintiff-respondent further pleaded that he had filed a separate appeal before the Chief Administrator wherein an order dated 5.10.1999 was passed giving (sic) defendant-respondent to remove the violation by 30.11.2001. The plaintiff-respondent also filed a revision against the order dated 30.10.2001, which was heard by the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh on 6.3.2002 who also gave another 6 months time for removal of violations and misuse. However, the said order of Administrator passed in revision of both the petitioner and respondents on 6.3.2002 was not complied with. The plaintiff also alleged that there was only one stair case available for accessing the basement and on account of discotheque club being run in the basement, there is a great rush of customers and in case any fire breaks out, there would be danger to the life of customers.
(3.) THE plaintiff-respondent further pleaded that the permission for running discotheque club was not granted by the authorities under the U.T. Administration and faced with the situation, the suit had to be filed seeking a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the violations and stop misusing of the suit property. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from running a discotheque club from the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff-respondent claimed that he had a prima facie case in his favour and the balance of convenience was also in his favour. It was further the case that the plaintiff-respondent was likely to suffer irreparable loss in case immediate relief by way of temporary injunction was not granted to him. The suit was contested by the petitioner-defendant wherein a preliminary objection was taken that the jurisdiction to deal with the matter in dispute was barred by Section 19 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, as resumption proceedings were pending before the Advisor to Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh. It was further pleaded that the site for shop-cum-office has already been resumed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent has no locus standi to file the suit.;