JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral)- This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction seeking restraint order against the respondent from raising construction or changing the roof has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. The learned courts below on appreciation of evidence have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the building was in dilapidated condition or any attempt was being made by the tenant to raise construction as was pleaded and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant. The appeal filed against the said order also met with the same fate. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in para No.3 of the plaint plaintiff had taken a stand that the shop in question was in dilapidated condition and that it was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Learned counsel submitted that in fact, a portion of the roof has collapsed yesterday. It was also pleaded that the defendant was threatening and attempting to reconstruct the roof of the demised shop and to make addition and alterations therein to which he has no right. It was claimed that a valuable right to evict the defendant from the demised shop has accrued to the plaintiff which is being sought to be defeated by the illegal attempts of the defendant. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that in reply to the said pleading in para no.3 the defendant had taken a stand that the averments made in the plaint were absolutely wrong and therefore, denied. It was pleaded by the defendant that the shop in dispute was not in dilapidated condition or unfit for human habitation. The allegation of a portion of roof having collapsed was also denied and it was alleged that the plaintiff had played a mischief in order to achieve an evil design to make a ground for eviction and himself damaged a little portion of about 2' x 2' of the roof and tried to make a hole at night by taking advantage of the absence of the defendant and also damaged the articles lying in the shop and as such the plaintiff cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs. It was claimed that a report was also made to the police authorities about the said act and the same was also reported in the vernacular Newspapers 5. The allegations made in para No.4 of the plaint were specifically denied and it was pleaded that the defendant had not made any attempt to reconstruct the roof of the demised premises. Other allegations were also denied. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the affidavit filed in evidence stands taken in paras No.3 and 4 of the written statement were changed as though it has been stated in the pleadings that the hole was constructed in the absence of the defendant, In the affidavit tendered by the deponent in evidence it has been stated that he along with other persons were present and they tried to stop the appellant-plaintiff from causing damage to the roof. The contention, therefore, was that this evidence was contrary to the pleadings. Learned counsel for the appellant, thereafter contended that as the suit filed by the plaintiff was merely for injunction the courts below wrongly recorded a finding that shop was not in dilapidated condition and therefore, damaged his interest in the eviction petition pending before the learned Rent Controller. The basis of this contention is that in a civil suit for injunction the learned courts below were not required to see whether the shop was in dilapidated condition or not. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The finding recorded by the learned trial court reads as under: “ 11. It is admitted fact that defendant is tenant under the plaintiff Mukesh Chander as has been deposed by DW2. It is further admitted that there is a hole in the roof of the shop in question. The plaintiff has come with specific plea that the shop in question is in dilapidated condition and portion of the roof has fallen in February, 2003 and now the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and it has become a ground for ejectment of the defendant from the shop. Therefore, defendant be restrained from reconstructing the shop without his permission. Whereas the defendant has controverted the pleas taken by the plaintiff and has categorically deposed that the shop in question was in good condition. Therefore, defendant be restrained from reconstructing the shop without his permission. Whereas the defendant has controverted the pleas taken by the plaintiff and has categorically deposed that the shop in question was in good condition. Plaintiff himself has caused damage to the shop in order to compel the defendant to vacate the demised shop. Plaintiff has not brought any evidence to substantiate his claim that the shop is in dilapidated condition except own statement. No building expert has been examined by the plaintiff who could have given an opinion regarding condition of the building Plaintiff has not even proved the photograph of the demised shop placed on the file. Plaintiff has not even examined any witness to controvert the pleas taken any the defendant that the plaintiff himself has damaged the roof of the shop. Whereas the defendant has examined two witnesses from his locality who has deposed that plaintiff along with his associates came at the spot and caused damage to the roof of the shop on 19.2.2003. Plaintiff has not examined any witness from the neighbourhood who could have rebutted the stand taken by the defendant and could have deposed that shop in question is in dilapidated condition and fallen itself. 12. As a result of above discussion, I am of the considered view that plaintiff has failed to prove, its case that the shop in question is a dilapidated condition. However, ownership of plaintiff is admitted. Therefore, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. As the plaintiff has failed to prove its case that the shop in question is in dilapidated condition, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to injunction as prayed for, hence issue No.2 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.” 8. Said findings have been recorded on the basis of pleadings raised by the plaintiff. Once in view of the pleadings it was stated by the plaintiff that the shop is in dilapidated condition and the said fact was denied by the defendant and evidence was also led to this effect, the court was bound to give its findings otherwise it would be said that the court below has not opined on the pleadings as raised by the parties in the case. 9. 9. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that due to slight discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses and pleadings the stand of the defendant was liable to be disbelieved cannot be accepted for the reasons that it was a suit by the plaintiff and he has to stand on his own legs and cannot take any benefit of weakness in the case of the defendant. Once he has failed to lead evidence in support of the pleadings, the learned courts below were justified in rejecting the stand taken by the plaintiff. No ground is made out which may call for interference by this court in regular second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. ----------------------