A suit for permanent injunction is maintainable in civil court even when alternative remedies exist under the Rent Act, provided no other effective relief is available.

JUDGMENT

Gurbir Singh, J.

Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, whereby application moved by the petitioner under section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 9 and section 151 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts as culled out from the petition are that respondent No.1-plaintiff (hereinafter called, "plaintiff") filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter called, "defendants") from making any additional alteration, causing any damage, change in the nature of the property and raising any type of construction and even installation of shutter etc. without the consent of the plaintiff in the shop part of the property bearing No.B-1-810/3, F/2, Prem Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, with specific boundaries as mentioned in the headnote of the plaint. The suit was filed on the ground that the plaintiff purchased the said property from Shri. Raj Kishan son of Shri. Sham Lal vide registered sale deed dated 13.02.2013 and at that time, possession of the property was given to the plaintiff. At the time of purchasing the property, defendant No.1- Arun Khurmi, petitioner herein, was tenant in the shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. He took the property for the office of Lawyer. He paid rent to the plaintiff only for the month of February and March, 2013. Lateron, he lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff was residing with her husband at Chandigarh and used to come to Ludhiana to see her mother-in-law. Defendant No.1, without the consent/writing of plaintiff, sublet the property to defendant No.2, who was running a Milk Booth in the shop in dispute and has started getting rent from defendant No.2 @ Rs. 12,000/- per month.

2.1 Upon notice, defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement that he was the actual owner and in possession of suit property on the basis of full and final agreement dated 14.06.1995 executed by Raj Krishan Beri in favour of Roshan Lal, father of defendant No.1, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs, which was paid to him. Roshan Lal had expired. Two shops were constructed in the said property. Since the dispute regarding title of the property was pending before the High Court, so it was agreed between the parties that the sale deed of the property would be executed after the decision of writ petition. It was also agreed that in case from the total property measuring 68 square yards if any portion was cut off for the purpose of laying road, in that case Raj Krishan Berry shall execute sale deed of the remaining property in favour of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 let out one shop bearing No.1 from the suit property to M/s Progressive Dairy Solutions Private Limited in April, 2016 vide written agreement and shop No.2 was in possession of defendant No.1 where his lawyer's office is situated. It was further submitted that on the intervening night of 17/18.09.2007, certain miscreants broke into the shop of defendant No.1 and committed theft of certain papers including original agreement to sell/purchase dated 14.06.1995 executed by Raj Krishan Berry in favour of late Roshan Lal. FIR was also lodged in this respect. However, photocopy of said agreement is in possession of defendant No.1. On 09.09.2016, defendant No.1 received notice from the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana to remove the construction that would be required for the purpose of widening of the road. Then defendant No.1 himself demolished the same. He came to know that litigation qua the property, in dispute, has achieved its finality and as such, he asked Raj Krishan Berry to execute and get the sale deed registered of remaining portion of the property in his favour, but said Raj Krishan Berry refused to accept said request. Defendant No.1 also filed a suit again