IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA st ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 4750 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

SALIM NAGORI S/O LATE MOHAMMAD MUZAFFAR NAGORI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 19/1 SHIKARI GALI UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI GAGAN PARASHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND ATUL NAGAR S/O LATE RAMASHANKAR JI NAGAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O 27 VARRUCHI ROAD FREEGANJ UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)

MISC. PETITION No. 4753 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

LOKESH GAJJAR S/O LATE ASHOK KUMAR JI GAJJAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 56 NEW ASHOK NAGAR NANAKHEDA UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI GAGAN PARASHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND ATUL NAGAR S/O LATE RAMASHANKAR JI NAGAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O 27, VARRUCHI ROAD FREEGANJ UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These petitions coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

O R D E R

1. Petitioner/the plaintiff Salim Nagori has filed Misc. Petition No.4750/2023 challenging the order date 19.7.2023 whereby application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Order 39 Rule 7 of CPC read with Section 151 of C.P.C. have been dismissed in RCS-A/522/2022.

2. Petitioner/the plaintiff Lokesh Gajjar has filed M.P. 4753/2023 challenging the order date 19.7.2023 whereby applications filed under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Order 39 Rule 7 of CPC read with Section 151 of C.P.C. have been dismissed in RCS-

A/521/2022.

3. The issue and the property in question are same in all the Misc. Petition thus same are decided by this common order.

4. The petitioner/Salim Nagori filed a suit for injunction praying therein that the respondent be restrained from taking possession of the tenancy premises/suit property without following due process of law. According to the plaintiff on 16/11/2022, the respondent started dismantling the entire building thereby causing nuisance and hazard of safety and health to the petitioner and his customers, so as to constrain him to vacate the suit property. The plaintiff is the tenant of a shop situated in the ground floor of house no.27 owned by the defendant since 1989 at the rate of Rs.300 per month. He is running the business in the name of S.N. Electrical Service. The defendant is increasing the rent regularly and in the year 2021 it was enhanced to Rs.2,000/-. In the month of June 2022 the defendant refused to pay the rent and directed him to vacate the shop. The defendant has given the contract for demolishing the house who has started the work on 16.11.2022, hence, the cause of action accrued in his favour for filing suit no RCS-A/522/2022. The defendant filed the reply denying the averment in the plaint.

5. Another tenant i.e. Lokesh Gajjar the plaintiff/petitioner who is in possession of another shop situated on the ground floor of house no.27 at the rent of Rs.60/- has also filed a civil suit on similar facts and circumstances i.e. RCS-A/521/2022.

6. Both the suits are proceeding jointly as the subject matters are same. The purpose of filing this suit is to seek protection from forceful eviction by the landlord. In both the suits the relief of temporary injunction has been granted to the plaintiff that they be not dispossessed and also restrained the defendant from interfering into the peaceful possession

7. In both the suits the plaintiff filed an applicant under order 26 Rule 9 read with order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking spot inspection of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs the roof of the both the sops needs immediate repair as the defendant has dismantled the construction of the first floor and has not removed debris from the roof. The defendant has also removed the staircase hence they are not in a position to repair the roof top. The learned trial judg