Discretionary orders made by lower courts are to be respected unless manifestly perverse; appellate courts cannot substitute their judgment for interim arrangements established by trial courts.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 20th October 2022, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (the learned ASCJ) in CS SCJ 1308/2022 (Anirudh Thareja v. Management Alumini Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.) on an application filed by the respondent, as the plaintiff in the said suit, under Section 151 of the CPC.

2. CS SCJ 1308/2022 was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner, seeking decrees of mandatory and permanent injunction.

3. The respondent contended that he was a tenant in respect of premises at Flat no. 408-B, Management Apartment, Plot No. 17, Sector 5, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 (hereinafter "the suit property"), and that his landlord, in respect of the said premises, was Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, since deceased.

4. The plaint further averred that, rent was paid, periodically, by the respondent, to Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, during his lifetime and, after his demise, to his legal heirs.

5. The respondent/plaintiff claimed to be aggrieved by the communication dated 28th August 2022, received from the petitioner defendant, alleging that an amount of Rs. 3,03,938/- was outstanding, to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent. The letter adverted to a tripartite lease agreement dated 1st May 2022. The respondent plaintiff, in the plaint, categorically denied having ever been a party to any such agreement. It was specifically stated that the said agreement did not bear the signature of the respondent-plaintiff. In view thereof, the plaint disclaimed any liability, on the part of the respondent plaintiff, to pay any maintenance charges to the petitioner.

6. The plaint alleged that, on the respondent failing to meet the purportedly illegal demand of the petitioner, the petitioner started resorting to coercive measures against the respondent, inter alia by disconnecting power backup and water supply to the respondent's premises. Repeated efforts, on the part of the respondent, to approach the BSES, it is alleged, failed to ensure restoration of the electricity and water supply. The plaint alleged that maintenance charges, if at all, were required to be paid only by the original allottee i.e., Sanjay Kumar Gupta or his legal heirs and no liability could be fastened on the respondent in that regard.

7. In the circumstances, the respondent issued a legal notice dated 3rd October 2022 to the petitioner, consequent to receipt of which the petitioner disconnected the water supply of the washroom and the Balcony of the respondent's flat, stopped delivery of the gas cylinder, courier and supply of drinking water to the respondent and also restricted ingress and egress of the respondent to the suit property.

8. On the basis of these allegations, the suit sought (i) a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner, directing the petitioner to restore, to the respondent, power backup and the water supply in the suit property, as well as other basic amenities which, allegedly, the petitioner had discontinued or obstructed, and (ii) a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner, restricting the petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession, by the respondent, of the suit property.

9. Summons were issued in the suit. Written statement is yet to be filed by the petitioner.

10. The respondent moved an application under Section 151 of the CPC which has come to be decided by the impugned order darted 20th October 2022. In the application, it was comp