1. The only question for decision in this regular second appeal filed by the defendant is whether the suit for a permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent was maintainable in its present form.
2. The respondent has been the appellant's tenant in the property in dispute since 1952. He had executed the rent note. Exhibit P. 7. dated 1-10-1952 and the rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month. An agreement. Exhibit P.1. dated 4-8-1957 executed between the parties may show that the house was in a very dilapidated condition and that the plaintiff-respondent had spent a sum of about Rs. 460/- on the repairs of a part of the property with the knowledge and consent of the appellant. The appellant had further authorised the respondent to spend a total amount of Rs. 1500/- on the repairs of the whole property. The respondent had been allowed to go on adjusting the monthly rent against the amounts spent by him and the appellant had agreed on his part that he would not take steps to recover the rent until he had paid off the amounts spent by the tenant on the repairs and renovations of the premises.
3. In disregard of this agreement, the appellant had filed an ejectment application against the respondent in the Court of a Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of rent. The respondent had to deposit the arrears claimed by the appellant on the first hearing in order to avoid his eviction. This has necessitated the filing of the present suit for injunction seeking to restrain the appellant from taking steps to realise the monthly rents in this extortionate manner until the tenant has been reimbursed in respect of the amounts spent by him on the repairs of the property.
4. Shri Sarin, the learned counsel for the appellant, argues that clauses (a) and (g) of Section 21 and clause (k) of Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act bar the filing of such a suit. In view of the circumstances mentioned above, award of pecuniary compensations would not be an adequate relief to the plaintiff-respondent if he is evicted from the premises in breach by the appellant of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Exhibit P. 1. The tenant has been induced to spend a substantial amount on the repairs of the landlord's property. The condition of the lease with regard to the monthly payments of rent is being enforced by the landlord in utter disregard of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Exhibit P. L. A proper performance of his part of the agreement, Exhibit P. 1. by the landlord need not impose on him any obligations extending over a period of more than three years because the appellant can put an end to his obligations at any time by depositing the amount spent by the tenant on repairs of the property. The appellant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own defaults. If he re-imburses the tenant, he can recover rent at an enhanced rate of Rs. 100/- per annum. In view of the substantial amount invested by the respondent on the repairs of the property, it cannot be said that he has no personal interest in the matter in terms of clause (k) of Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act. These provisions of the said Act have, therefore, no application to the present case. The ruling Anil Kumar v. Bhagirath Lal ILR (1961) 2 Punj 737 = (AIR 1962 Punj 514) relied upon by Shri Sarin proceed on altogether different facts. Both the Courts below had, therefore, rightly granted the plaintiff-respondent a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for by him.
5. The appeal fails and is dismissed. As no one has appeared for the respondent today, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
6. Appeal dismissed.