2. The premises was solely and exclusively let out for the purpose of running a business.
3. The defendant, without consent of the plaintiff, began raising of an improvised structure on the open inner courtyard of the premises on 11.11.1993 intending to use the same as a car-shed.
4. The plaintiff came to know regarding this unauthorised structure only on 1.12.1994 and protested the same day but the defendant threatened to complete the construction.
5. That the cause of action for this suit arose on 1.12.1994 when the plaintiff came to know of the unauthorised construction at Bheemunipatna within the jurisdiction of this court.
6. Suit valuation.
The plaintiff, therefore, prays
i. For a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pull down the said unauthorised construction forthwith:
ii. For an injunction restraining the defendant and his engaged labour to continue acts of construction.
1. It is true that the defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff. The tenancy is covered by lease agreement dated 9.8.1992. The agreement’s clause 13 empowers the defendant to make constructions in the leased premises. The plaintiff therefore cannot claim any injunction against the defendant for making the construction.
2. The defendant further submits that the defendant in fact raised only a shed with asbestos to keep the empty tins and bottles. There is no justification for the plaintiff to claim for a mandatory injunction to pull down the structure which is not causing any obstruction whatsoever to anyone.
The suit is liable to be dismissed even on this count.
3. Hence, the defendant prays that the suit may be dismissed with costs.