V.K. Jain, J.

1. This is a suit for grant of permanent and mandatory injunctions. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of shop No. 11-E (Mezzanine Floor) forming part of building situated on units No. 13 to 29, Block E-, Circle-D, Connaught Place, New Delhi with entrance from the inner circle Connaught Place. The plaintiff also claims to be tenant in respect of Flat No. 4, which is the first floor immediately above the mezzanine floor, forming part of the aforesaid building. The case of the plaintiff is that when late Shri Prem Narain Aggarwal was approached for the change of tenancy in respect of the mezzanine floor, he was offered the tenancy of the first floor and he agreed to the creation of tenancy in respect of the first floor only on the condition that he will have direct access to the first floor via staircase leading from the ground floor of the mezzanine floor, from the front of the building abutting the inner circle of Connaught Place. This, according to the plaintiff, could have been possible only by constructing a staircase leading to the first floor from the mezzanine floor. It is further alleged that Shri Prem Narain Aggarwal agreed to the proposal and his lease deed dated 1st July, 1986 was accordingly executed. This is also the case of the plaintiff that he was made to write two letters to the effect that he would be entitled to construct a staircase integrating the mezzanine floor with the first floor.

2. It is stated in the plaint that the first floor has access from the service lane, but that is a common staircase for two separate buildings No. E-10 and E-11 and, therefore, it was specifically agreed between the parties that the access from the mezzanine floor would form integral part of the tenancy of the first floor. The plaintiff claims to have accordingly constructed the staircase leading from the mezzanine floor to the first floor at his own cost with the approval of the landlord. As regards the access through the service lane, it is alleged in para 13 of the plaint that the service lane access to the first floor was closed more than 17 years ago.

3. Eviction proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff in respect of the mezzanine floor and the suit filed against the plaintiff for possession of the aforesaid premises was decreed. It is alleged that though warrant of possessions were sought to be executed on 16th December, 2003, the decree could not be executed on that date and possession could not be taken.

4. It is specifically stated in para 11 of the plaint that the plaintiff is still in possession of the mezzanine floor. It is claimed that defendant No. 2 and his fellows were attempting to obstruct the right of ingress and egress of the plaintiff to the first floor. The plaintiff has accordingly sought mandatory injunction, restraining the defendants from obstructing the staircase leading from the ground floor to the first floor via mezzanine floor and preventing access of the plaintiff and his customers, etc. to the showroom on the first floor, through the aforesaid staircase. He has also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the junk and disused furniture which they have put in the staircase leading to the first floor.

5. Vide IA No. 10153/2010 under Order 6 Rule 16 r/w Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the plaintiff has sought rejection of the plaint and dismissal of the suit. It is claimed in the application that the following averments made in the plaint are frivolous and vexatious, amounting to an abuse of the process of the Court and are an attempt to re-litigate issues which have already been settled between the parties right up to Supreme Court in several rounds of litigation;

(i)

In the first paragraphs of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that he is an existing tenant of the mezzanine floor.

(ii)

In paragraph No. 8 of the plaint the plaintiff has averred that the only access to the first floor is from front, through the mezzanine floor.

(iii)

In p