A.L.VAIDYA - (1.)The premises in dispute consists of residential set situated in the West portion (top floor) of Amin Chand House, Kaithu, Shimla -3. The parties are stated to be closely related.
(2.)The disputed premises is a part of the building known as Amin Chand House which -was owned by one Amar Singh, who happened to be the father -in -law of the plaintiff -respondent Shri Surjit Singh. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction with the prayer that the defendants be restrained from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff as well as from causing any interference to the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises and also from causing any disturbance to the staff members of the plaintiffs who have been working in a portion of the suit premises, by passing a decree for prohibitory injunction with costs. The plaintiff in suit claimed to be in occupation of these premises with effect from 1965 and in one portion of these premises he was running his offices for architectural business. The plaintiff claims that he has been registered as an Architect by the Council of Architect of India. According to him, he has obtained power, water and telephone connection to the premises in dispute in his own name and h& has also been drawing essential commodities at the address of the said premises. According to plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 had been putting up in a portion of Amin Chand House, East Portion (Top Floor) for the last 3 -4 years. Defendant No. 3 was alleged to be a foreign citizen and she also started residing with defendants 1 and 2 and they all have been alleged to be interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff. It was also pleaded that defendants, in the absence of the plaintiff, committed house tres -pass by entering into the premises in dispute and tried to remove some of the goods of the plaintiff. As the defendants did not accede to the claim of the plaintiff, hence the suit for injunction was preferred.
(3.)The defendants, in their written statement, put up a counter -claim also. According to them, husband of defendant No. 3 bad been owner in possession of the premises in dispute and the plaintiff was permitted only to reside in a portion of the suit premises when he had been carrying on a dispute with one Shri Sultan Singh Bakshi. According to defendants, the disputed premises was originally owned and possessed by one Shri Amar Singh and defendant No.1 was daughter of Shri Amar Singh. As she became widow at a very young -age, therefore, her father had provided the premises in dispute to her several years back. Plaintiff was admitted to be the son -in -law of Shri Amar Singh, Shri Sultan Singh Bakshi was also started to be the son -in -law of Shri Amar Singh, It was admitted that husband of defendant No, 3 was staying abroad, but he had been visiting the premises in dispute. The interference with the possession of the plaintiff has been denied. According to defendants, plaintiff had been permitted to reside in the premises in dispute as a licensee and the plaintiff had -manipulated water, power and telephone connection in his own name. It was pleaded that initially these connections had been in the name of Shri Amar Singh. The plaintiff, after the revocation of the licence to occupy the premises, was a tres -passer and was not entitled to occupy the said premises. Defendants in the counter -claim prayed that the plaintiff be restrained from interfering with the possession of defendant No. 3 over the premises in dispute by issuance of a decree of perpetual injunction against him and alternatively, it was prayed that decree for mandatory injunction against the plaintiff for restoration of the possession of the premises in dispute be passed.