A tenant must adhere to terms of a lease and cannot alter property without consent; permanent structures contradicting lease terms are not permitted.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2004 passed by learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala, vide which, the appeal filed by the appellant (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a decree of a permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant from changing the nature of the land comprised in Khata No. 146 Khatauni No. 355 Khasra No. 2260 measuring 105-88 square meters situated in Up Mohal Dharamshala, Mouza and Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra as per the Jamabandi for the year 1990-91 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). A relief of mandatory injunction was also sought against the defendant directing her to demolish the construction, if any, raised by her during the pendency of the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land. The plaintiff leased out part of the suit land to the defendant on 01.08.1977 on the condition that the defendant was not to change the nature of the suit land by raising construction of a permanent structure without obtaining prior permission of the plaintiff. The defendant started collecting construction materials to raise the superstructure on the suit land without seeking permission. She employed labour to raise construction. She was requested not to do so but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, the suit being barred by limitation, the suit having not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction, the plaintiff being estopped to file the present suit by its acts, conduct and acquiescence. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. However, it was not disputed that the plaintiff is the owner and the defendant is the lessee. It was asserted that the construction was raised with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff by spending a huge amount of Rs. 5 lakh. The residential house has been in existence for more than 25 years and no new construction was raised. The suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

5. The learned trial Court framed the following issues on 24.10.1994 & 28.02.2001:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the defendant was leased out part of the suit land? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the Union of India is a necessary party? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff is stopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD

6A. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD

7. Relief

6. Parties were called upon to produce the evidence and the plaintiff examined Karib Baksh (PW-1), and Jagdish Kaushal (PW2). The defendant examined herself (DW-1).

7. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.05.1998.

8. The defendant filed an appeal and the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court with a direction to re-hear the parties.

9. An application for amendment was filed, which was allowed and an additional issue was framed on 28.02.2001. No fresh evidence was led. Learned Trial Court held that the suit land was allotted to the defendant for raising a residential structure. She had raised a residential structure on the plot before 1980. It was not proved that the defendant had tried to