Suit for Permanent Injunction

 

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Div.), FIROZABAD

O. S. No.                   of 2013

Adhis Baslas, aged 52 year s/o Late Sri Ram Nath Baslas r/o Mohalla Barhi Chhapeti, City and District Firozabad.

  .…………………………………………..Plaintiff

VERSUS

1.     Sri Rakesh Kumar s/o Late Sri Shyam Lal Agrawal,

2.     Sri Sharad Kumar s/o Late Sri Shyam Lal Agrawal, and

3.     Sri Madhav Kumar s/o Late Sri Shyam Lal Agrawal.

All are the Rs/o Gali Boharan, City and District Firozabad.

 …..………..………….…………….Defendants

Sir,

            The plaintiff named above begs to state as under:-

1.     That Late Sri Ram Nath s/o Late Sri Kunji Lal, the father of the plaintiff was the tenant of Shop No. 10 in the property of defendants situated at Kanji Gali, Boharan Gali, Firozabad on behalf of the defendants at the rent of Rs. 700.00 per month with water tax. The tenancy commences on the 1^st day of each month of English year. The full description of this shop is detailed at the foot of this plaint.

2.     That the father of the plaintiff has been died on 15.01.2006 and after his demise the plaintiff, being his real son, got the possession and tenancy of shop in question and continued his father’s business because the plaintiff was looking after the business of Late Sri Ram Nath.

3.     That just after the demise of his father, the plaintiff informed to the defendants about his death and requested them to transfer the tenancy of shop in question in his name but the defendants did not transfer the tenancy of shop in the name of the plaintiff even after increasing the rent of shop from Rs. 700.00 per month to Rs. 1400.00 per month. The receipt no. 22 issued by the defendants is enclosed as Annexure – 1.

4.     That at present the plaintiff is running a bangle shop under the name & style ‘M/s Kunji Lal Ram Nath Baslas’ in this property and an electric connection no. 5027 is installed in this shop in the name of Sri Ram Nath, the father of plaintiff. The original Bill dated 08.02.2013 is enclosed as Annexure – 2.

5.     That at present the plaintiff is paying Rs. 1400.00 per month with the water tax but the defendants are cleverly issuing the receipt of rent in the name of Late Sri Ramnath, the father of the plaintiff even after his death.

6.     That now-a-days, the shop in question has gained the higher market value so seeing this; the defendants want to usurp the shop in question after dispossessing the plaintiff from the shop. The plaintiff has learnt that the defendants want to lease out the said premises to someone else on a higher rent.

7.     That the plaintiff is a law abiding member of the society and believes in law while the defendants believe in force and as such they given threat to the plaintiff to dispossess him from the shop in question forcibly. The defendants and their associates are regularly giving threats to the plaintiff to withdraw his possession from the shop in question else he will face dire consequences.

8.     That the act of the defendants is high handed and to defeat the interest of the plaintiff in the property in question and the plaintiff cannot restrain the defendants by force.

9.     That the plaintiff has been tried his best to remonstrate the matter himself and through some men of the locality but the defendants are so adamant not to listen the men, hence this suit for the prohibitory permanent injunction.

10.                        That the plaintiff has no other alternate except to file this suit for permanent injunction and the plaintiff is entitled to get an injunction in his favour restraining the defendants and their associates from evicting and dispossessing to the plaintiff.

11.                        That the cause of action for the present suit arose on        -      -2013 at 05:00 P. M. when the defendants and their associates gave clear threat to the plaintiff to dispossess him from the shop in question at Gali Boharan within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court has full jurisdiction to entertain and decide this suit.

12.                        That the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and payment of court fee is Rs. 16,800/- the rent for one year and the court fee has been paid according to law.

PRAYER

      The plaintiff therefore prays for the following reliefs:-

A.    A decree and judgment of prohibitory permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the shop in question either by themselves, associates or others either by dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly, entering in the shop in question or any manner whatsoever;

B.     To allow the cost of this suit in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; and

C.    To grant such other and further reliefs in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, to which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.  

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY: -         

One shop bearing No. 10 situated at Kanji Gali, Boharan Gali, Firozabad and bounded and measured as under:-

North:- Street and Gate of shop; (16 Feet);

South:- Property of landlord under tenancy of Mukesh Gupta (16 Feet);

East   :- Street and Gate of shop (08 Feet 6 Inch); and

West :- Property of landlord (08 Feet 6 Inch)

              Total Area 136 square feet.

PLAINTIFF

VERIFICATION: - Verified that the content of paragraph No. 1 to 9 of this plaint is base on personal knowledge and belief of the plaintiff while the content of paragraph No. 10 and 11 of this plaint is base on the legal advice given to them and we believe to this advice to be true and correct.

            Verified on this   day of April, 2013 at District & Sessions Court Compound, Firozabad.

PLAINTIFF

 

      

      THROUGH

 

 

(PRAVEEN KUMAR BHATNAGER)

LL. M., ADVOCATE