' The present suit had been instituted by the plaintiffs company seeking a permanent injunctions against the defendants. The defendants are the landlords/owners of the building known as "Hakimsons Building" and the plaintiffs are their tenants in respect of the office on the first floor and godowns -- on the ground floor of the said building. The prayer that has been made in this suit by the plaintiffs is for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from removing the plaintiffs' signboards affixed on either side of the external walls of the offices occupied by the plaintiffs on the first floor of the said building. It has been noted in the order. Dated 12th April, 1982 passed in this suit that the two learned counsel agreed that this suit may be decided on the basis of the documents and that no oral evidence was necessary. The documents have been filed by both the parties. On 12th April, 1982 the following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the defendants agreed to allow the plaintiffs to put their sign-boards on the external walls of the building ?
(2) Whether the lease agreement or any other document exchanged between the parties permits the affixation of the sign-boards of the plaintiffs on the external walls of the building in question ?
(3) Relief ?
2. I have heard Mr. Mohammad Naim, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Mr. Ibrahim Pishori, learned counsel for the defendants. The learned counsel have taken me through the documents filed in this case, which include the correspondence exchanged between the parties and their advocates and also the two lease-deeds dated 18th August, 1958 and 28th April, 1961 executed by the parties in respect of the premises in question. The dispute between the parties is whether the plaintiffs can affix their sign-boards on the external walls of their office premises. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants had agreed that such sign-boards could be affixed on the external walls of the office premises of the plaintiffs but after the sign-boards had been affixed they were removed unauthorisedly. Later on in view of the new B agreement between the parties, the sign- boards were again, affixed, but as the defendants threatened to remove them, the present suit was filed. In this connection the letter dated 13th February, 1979 of the plaintiffs' advocates addressed to the defendants' advocates and the letter dated 2nd April, 1979 of the defendants' advocates in reply may be reproduced hereinbelow :- 13th February, 1979 "Dear Sirs, ' Re : Blackwood Hodge (Pakistan) Limited.
' We refer to the various discussions between your Mr. Pishori on behalf of your clients Hakimsons (IMPEX) Ltd. , and our Mr. Bhojani on behalf of our clients Blackwood Hodge (Pakistan) Ltd., in connection with our clients' tenancy in your clients' premises situated at 19, West Wharf Road, Karachi and we confirm the agreement arrived at as follows.
(1) Our clients will pay the increased rent inclusive of service charges at the rate of 0.75 paisa per square foot per month commencing from 1st January, 1979 as requested by your clients and in consideration of the increased rent your clients will permit our clients to put up their sign-boards as they have done in the past and before they were removed by your clients.
(2) The rest of the terms and conditions contained in the previous lease, will remain the same and our clients are agreeable to execute and register a fresh lease that your clients may require.
' Based on the foregoing agreement and as requested by Mr. Pishori, we enclose herewith our clients' cheque in favour of your clients for Rs, 10,432.56 made up as follows :
(1) Rs, 4,451 being the balance of rent and service charges for the months of January and February, 1979.
(2) Rs, 5,981.56 being the service charges from 1st November, 1976 to 31st December, 1978.
Please acknowledge receipt."
2nd April, 1979, "Dear Sir, ' Re : Blackwood Hodge (Pakistan) Limited.
' Your letter No, B-1563/411, dated 13th February, 1979 addressed to us was passed on to our client Hakimsons (Impex) Limited for their reaction.
' Our clients have encashed the cheque for Rs, 10,432.56 sent by you subject to the following objections :-
(1) The total amount of rent for the months of January and February 1972 comes to Rs, 8,265 at the rate of Rs, 4,132.50 per month. Out of this amount our client received Rs, 4,451 from you and Rs, 3,067.50 at the rate of Rs, 1,533.75 per month direct from your client, making a total of Rs, 7,518.50.
This leaves a balance of Rs, 746.50 due from your client.
(2) The area of the office premises occupied by your client is 3,627 sq. Ft. And not 3,435 sq. Ft. Which may please be corrected by your client.
' Your client have sent rent for the month of March at Rs, 3,988.50 instead of Rs, 4,132.50 thereby leaving a balance of Rs, 144.
' Kindly instruct your" client to send us their cheque for Rs, 890.50 to square up the rent account upto March, 1979 and to send rent for April, 1979 and onwards at the rate of Rs, 4,132 per month."
A perusal of the aforesaid letter dated 13th February, 1979 confirms that an agreement had been arrived at between the parties, whereby the plaintiffs agreed to pay increased rent in consideration of the increased rent, the defendants would permit the plaintiffs to put up their sign-boards, as they had done in the past and before they were removed by the defendant. Alongwith this letter a cheque for Rs, 10,432.56 was also sent to the defendants. From the reply dated 2nd April, 1979 it stands confirmed that the aforesaid agreement, as mentioned in the letter dated 13th February, 1979 was reached between the parties. In the letter dated 2nd April, 1979 it is not mentioned that there was no agreement regarding the sign-boards nor is there any denial of the assertion made in the letter dated 13th February, 1979 that the aforesaid agreement had been reached between the parties. On the contrary, it is manifest from the letter dated 2nd April, 1979 written on behalf of the defendants, that such agreement, as was mentioned in the letter dated 13th February, 1979 was arrived at between the parties. If the rent has been enhanced in consideration of the defendants permitting the plaintiffs to affix D their sign-boards and such enhanced rent has been accepted, the defendants cannot later on turn round and take a contrary position.
3. It was urged by Mr. Ibrahim Pishori, learned counsel for the defendants, that K. P. T. Can take action against the defendants if the sign-boards are affixed by the plaintiffs on the external walls of the office premises in question. No notice or letter of K. P. T. Has been filed by the defendants, in which K. P. T. Has threatened to take action on account of display of signboards on the external walls of the office premises in question.
4. In the circumstances, issues No, (1) and (2) are decided in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiffs. It is decided that the defendants had agreed to allow the plaintiffs to put up their sign- boards on the external walls of the office premises of the plaintiffs in the building in question and that the letters dated 13th February, 1979 and 2nd April, 1979 exchanged between the Advocates of the parties confirm this agreement. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint.
5. The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed and I grant a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them, their agents, servants or workmen, from removing the plaintiffs' sign-boards affixed on either side of the external walls of the office premises occupied by them on the first floor of the defendants' building known as "Hakimsons Building" situated at 19, West Wharf Road, Karachi.
The plaintiffs shall also be entitled to costs.