( 1 ) THIS order will govern the disposal of I. A. 8035/90 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff and I. A. No. 1160/94 filed under Order 39 rule 4 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code for vacation of ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 24/09/1990. by the defendants.

( 2 ) SUIT was filed on 22/09/1990 alleging that Kavi Kumar Bhargava, defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. Dularey Lal Bhargava, father of plaintiff, bharti Bhargava and husband of Smt. Savitri Devi Bhargava expired in September 1975. Smt. Savitri Devi Bhargava too died on 7/03/1990. Defendant herein had instituted suit being Suit No. 477/74 against Smt. Savitri Devi Bhargava who was defendant No. l, Bharti Bhargava who was defendant no. 2 and plaintiff herein who was defendant No. 3, for partition of two properties bearing Nos. 3/13-8, Asaf Ali road and E-15 and16, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi. During the pendency of suit with the consent of parties the disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of Sh. B. P. Sinha, ex-Chief Justice of India. Arbitrator made the award on 28/03/1975 and pursuant thereto a decree was passed on 1 5/05/1975 after recording the statements of parties. In terms of said award and decree it was,interalia, held that Smt. Savitri Devi Bhargava shall continue to possess and realise the rent during her lifetime of said property no. E-15 and16, Nizamuddin west. It is further alleged that plaintiff has been in possession of first and second floors of property No. E-15 and 16, Nizamuddin west for the last over 20 years. Tenancy on a monthly rental of Rs. 500. 00 in respect of both the floors of property was created in her favour with effect from 1/08/1984 by Smt. Savitri Devi bhargava with the knowledge and consent of defendant. Thereafter a lease deed was reduced into writing. Plaintiff has been paying rent since 1/08/1984. She also handed over a cheque towards rent for the month of march 1990 to the defendant as desired by him after the death of Smt. Savitri Devi Bhargava on 7/03/1990. It is stated that the defendant had been pressurising the plaintiff to vacate the tenanted premises. On 1 6/09/1990 the defendant threatened and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from tenanted premises by having recourse to physical violence and illegal means. It was prayed that decree of permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant restraining the later from dispossessing the former from the tenanted premises except in due course of law. Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with and/or obstructing the plaintiff s enjoyment of tenanted premises is further sought to be passed by the plaintiff.

( 3 ) IN the suit aforesaid I. A. 8035/90 on the grounds identical to those taken in plaint, was filed and by the order dated 24/09/1990 by means of an ex parte ad interim injunction the defendant was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from 1st and 2nd floors of property No. E-15 and 16, Nizamuddin west in addition to his either personally or through his servants obstructing the plaintiff s ingress to and egress from the said property. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. By way of preliminary objections, it is alleged that original lease deed which was required to be filed alongwith plaint, was not filed with it and a false stand was taken that the same was with answering defendant. Answering defendant controverted this false allegation in the reply to I. A. 8035/90. In the rejoinder filed on 2/12/1990 the plaintiff did not stick to said false allegation. and the court directed the plaintiff to produce alleged original lease deed within a week by the order dated 3/12/1990. Same was still not produced. In reply to I. A. . 11391/90 under Order 11 Rule 21 Civil Procedure Code filed by answering defendant, during the course of hearing counsel of plaintiff admitted that original lease dee