suit premises were situate which had been let out to the defendant as tenant on monthly rent of 2,000/- and the said rent was increased from time to time and in the year 1995, the defendant was paying the rent at the rate of 3,000/- per month. It was averred that despite repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff and her predecessor-ininterest to pay the rent from the month of May, 1995, the defendant had miserably failed to pay and tender due rent despite the fact that the building was situated in a prime area. It was also averred that in addition to the defendant, there were other tenants in the premises who had not been paying the rent to the plaintiff. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for restraining the defendant from permanently making any additions, alterations, changes effecting/carrying out repairs in the disputed premises on the ground that the defendant refused to allow the plaintiff to inspect the tenanted premises without prior notice and the plaintiff was having no intention to raise the construction in the other part of the suit land without causing any damage to the tenanted premises and in the building in which the tenanted premises was situate, but the defendant with the help of other tenants was not allowing the plaintiff to start the development activity in the vacant land to which the defendant had no right. At the same time, it was averred that the defendant is having no right, title or interest to carry out major repairs, additions and alterations in the tenanted premises.
