KutubuddIn Vs. Habib Khan

landlord and tenant and civil procedure code - section 151 and order 39, rules 1 and 2--temporary injunction granted prohibiting defendant from disturbing to carry out necessary repairs of damaged property--grant of police assistance is a step forward for implementation of order.;revision rejected - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 2. it is the duty of the court to see that the tenant enjoyed the property and carries out without any obstruction the necessary repairs which are necessary for the enjoyment and with this view in mind the court passed the temporary injunction on 22-2-1986. granting of permission to the plaintiff non-petitioner to carry-out the necessary repairs implies that the defendant has been prohibited from interfering with the necessary repairs......application has been accepted vide impugned order.2. it is the duty of the court to see that the tenant enjoyed the property and carries out without any obstruction the necessary repairs which are necessary for the enjoyment and with this view in mind the court passed the temporary injunction on 22-2-1986. granting of permission to the plaintiff non-petitioner to carry-out the necessary repairs implies that the defendant has been prohibited from interfering with the necessary repairs. the court below was justified in granting permission to carry-out necessary repairs in light of the order dated 22-2-1986. if the police assistance has not been given the order dated 22-2-1986 will remain on paper and the plaintiff will get no remedy or no relief. in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court can exercise powers under section 151, cpc and the court has rightly exercised powers under section 151. mr. p.d. mathur submits that the doctrine of res-judicata applies as earlier the application was rejected twice. rejection of the application for police help is not a decision on merits of a case. in fact, grant of an application for police assistance is a step forward in the matter of implementation of the order dated 22-2-1986.3. i do not find any force in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. revision petitions rejected. the plaintiff will carry-out the repairs in accordance with the order dated 22-2-1986 only as modified by the appellate court.