IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (205) Reserved on : 20.01.2026 Pronounced on : 29.01.2026 Uploaded on: .01.2026

1. RSA-2684-1997 (O&M)

Inder Mohan Bhalla (Since Deceased) Through his LRs … Appellant Versus Gurdev Kaur (Since Deceased) Through her LRs and Others .…Respondents AND

2. RSA- 2685-1997 (O&M)

Inder Mohan Bhalla (Since Deceased) Through his LRs …..Appellant.

Versus Gurdev Kaur (Since Deceased) Through her LRs and Others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :- Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The appellant-defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur which dismissed their appeal as well as the judgment and decree dated 08.12.1994 of the learned Sub Judge II Class, Hoshiarpur, respectfully invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court through the present Regular Second Appeals (hereinafter referred as “RSAs”). The plaintiffs originally instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from causing any damage to the shop in possession of plaintiffs and also from fixing gate/shutter on the staircase leading to the roof of the shop in possession of the plaintiffs as tenants.

2. Plaintiffs, Gurdev Kaur and Parminder Kaur, filed a suit against Inder Mohan Bhalla and Amar Nath Bhalla, defendants, alleging that Balwant Singh, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No.2, was the tenant of the shop in dispute. They claim that the predecessor of the plaintiffs enjoyed the right of user of the first floor via the western stair-case without interference. After Balwant Singh's death, the plaintiffs have continued the tenancy as legal heirs, paying a monthly rent of Rs.50/- and utilizing the shop for a beauty parlour. They use the stair-case to access the roof of the shop for “putting articles in the sun and also enjoy the roof in the winter”.

3. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, allured by attractive market rents, now intend to put a shutter/gate on the stair-case to block the plaintiffs' access. According to the plaint, the defendants have recently opened a small opening from their house towards the roof and are up-rooting cement pointing and throwing water to cause damage. The plaintiffs contend these are evil designs to create grounds for their eviction. They seek to prevent the defendants from setting up the shutter and playing havoc with the shop, asserting that the stair-case was always meant solely for the use of the tenant for access to roof.

4. Upon service of notice, Defendants have filed a joint written statement contesting the suit inter-alia, on the preliminary objections that the site plan filed with the plaint is incorrect. It does not depict the true and correct situation, measurement and boundaries at the spot. The stair-case has no concern with the plaintiffs; the plaintiff have not come to the court with clean hands and have suppressed the true facts; the suit is not maintainable. On merits, they have not disputed the tenancy of the plaintiffs as well as of Balwant Singh, deceased, the predecessor of the plaintiffs but it is denied that Balwant Singh had any concern with the stair- case and roof of the shop in dispute. He was also having no right of user of the first floor of the shop and the stair- case. They have denied that they have opened the door recently. They alleged that the opening was since long time and the same is still there. They also denied that the stair-case in dispute is only meant for the tenants, but it is pleaded that it is for the use of the defendants. An iron gate was fixed in the stair-case. The same was removed from the walls by the plaintiffs, a few hours before the visit of the Local Commissioner. The possession of the plaintiffs in the shop is not disputed and they are running the business of beauty parlour.