JUDGMENT

We have heard counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of High Court of Delhi in Regular Second Appeal No. 12 of 1999 dated 12th April, 1999 whereby the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal preferred by the appellant on a finding that there was no substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal.

3. The Second Appeal arose from a suit filed by landlord-respondent for perpetual and mandatory injunction against the appellants alleging that they had carried out certain structural changes in the premises let out to the appellant whereby the premises were substantially damaged and some parts of the building developed cracks, it being an old building. It is not necessary for us to refer in detail to the allegations made in the plaint. After examining the evidence the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had proved his case and this was a fit case for grant of permanent injunction. Accordingly, on 31.3.1998, the learned Civil Judge passed a decree of mandatory injunction.

4. Against the decree passed by the Trial Court an appeal was preferred before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. By judgment