CR No.1579 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1579 of 2011. Decided on: May 11, 2011. Ved Parkash and another. .. Petitioners VERSUS Mrs.Rajni Verma. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.R.B.Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming to be in possession as a tenant. The defendant- petitioners are contesting the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for injunction by taking up a plea that tenancy if any in favour of the plaintiff-respondent stands relinquished by her on September 18, 2009 as she had delivered the possession of the shop to the . . . 1 CR No.1579 of 2011 defendant-petitioners after receiving a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs. In the written statement annexure-2, a plea has been taken that the suit property had been divided into six equal parts and an award was passed on January 29, 2010 and according to that award, the petitioners are in exclusive possession of their respective shares which fell in partition and the entire building which existed in the suit property has been demolished much prior to the institution of the suit. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances pleaded by the parties, while deciding the application for interim injunction, the trial Court passed an order of status quo regarding the property in dispute after appointing the Local Commissioner who reported that a shop exists on the spot which was locked besides observing that first floor of the shop stood demolished. In order to implement the order of status quo, the plaintiff- respondent seems to have filed an application for police help. An application annexure P-5 has been filed for police help. Vide impugned order annexure P-6, the said application has been allowed vide order dated February 25, 2011 and the plaintiff-respondent has been given permission to get police assistance for enjoying its possession. It is the order dated February 25, 2011 which has been challenged by the defendants before this Court. It has been argued by counsel for the petitioners that the order dated February 25, 2011 is illegal as while passing the order of status quo, it was never observed by the Court that the plaintiff- . . . 2 CR No.1579 of 2011 respondent was in actual possession of the shop. In view of there being no specific observation or finding regarding the plaintiff- respondent being in possession, the order of police assistant is not sustainable. A copy of the order, which has been placed on record as annexure P-4 vide Misc. application, has also been challenged by virtue of an application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for producing the original document of termination of rent agreement between plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5, has been decided by passing a vague order observing that the rent agreement of the plaintiff- respondent was presumed to be alive. It is claimed that on the basis of said order, application for police help has been filed by the plaintiff- respondent. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that drawing a presumption regarding the rent agreement to be alive is illegal as the defendants No.1 to 5 have taken up a specific plea that the original document terminating the tenancy is not in their possession but it is in possession of defendant No.6 who happens to be the father-in-law of the plaintiff. Counsel for the petitioners challenges the observations in order dated December 11, 2010 wherein it has been observed that the rent agreement will be presumed to be alive and the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff- respondent is in possession of the shop in dispute as tenant on the basis of rent agreement is uncalled for. It has led to the passing of an order of police help. Counsel for the petitioner has . . . 3 CR No.1579 of 2011 relied upon Jagbir Singh Vs. Gajjan Singh, 2000 (4) RCR (Civil) 232 wherein it has been observed that if an interim order of status quo is passed by a Court regarding possession of a suit property in those circumstances no case was made out for granting police help to the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has argued that false relinquishment deed has been created by the defendants to defeat the rights of the plaintiff- respondent and that the plaintiff is in actual physical possession of the shop and that with the help of police the plaintiff had been permitted to open the shop. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and respondent to determine the validity of the order granting police help and the order annexure P-4 by virtue of which the trial Court has observed that rent agreement of plaintiff will be presumed to be alive. A perusal of the orders passed by the Courts below indicates that the dispute is regarding the ownership and possession of a share which is claimed by the plaintiff-respondent to be in her possession as tenant. The claim of the defendants-petitioners is that the rent agreement has ceased to exist. In view of the said circumstance, the order of status quo had been passed. In an application for interim injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent, a word of caution has repeatedly been passed that while granting an order of status quo, the Courts should prima facie observe as to which party is in actual physical possession. In the present case, the defendants-petitioners did not claim themselves to be in actual . . . 4 CR No.1579 of 2011 physical possession, but they claim that the shop in dispute has already been demolished after determining their share in the shop. When the trial Court passed the order of status quo, prima facie, the possession of the plaintiff-respondent was established on the basis of rent agreement. Whether tenancy ceased to exist and the tenants stood dispossessed, is yet to be determined during pendency of the case by the trial Court. The trial Court was required to determine whether prima facie possession of the plaintiff-respondent was established and whether there are chances of irreparable loss being caused to the plaintiff-respondent in case of denial of interim relief. The necessary ingredient to be established for granting interim injunction is to determine whether balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff. In the present case, the order of status quo was meant to protect the possession of the plaintiff-respondent during pendency of the suit. The order of status quo implies that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to open the shop and use the same. In case of violation of the interim order whose implementation is sought by filing an application before the Court for police help, the trial Court in the present case has, of course, casually ordered the grant of police help but at the same time it is observed that the order is not violative of the principles of justice and fairness. In view of the plaintiff-respondent, prima facie, having been found in possession on the basis of a rent agreement dated 18.09.2009 and the controversy regarding relationship of tenancy being in dispute, the impugned order passed by the trial Court permitting the police help, to enjoy . . . 5 CR No.1579 of 2011 the possession cannot be said to be illegal especially when the order has not been misused by any of the parties. So far as the observations of the trial Court in order dated 11.12.2010, Annexure P1, that rent agreement of the plaintiff will be presumed to be alive is concerned, the said order was passed in an application for production of document terminating the rent agreement relied upon by the defendants. Defendant-appellant Nos.1 to 5 took up a plea that the original document was with defendant No.6, father-in-law of the plaintiff, as such, the observations that rent agreement of the plaintiff will be presumed to be alive does not appear to be unwarranted by the circumstances. In all fairness to the counsel for the petitioners, it will not be out of place to mention here that the judgment in case Jagbir Singh Vs. Gajjan Singh, 2000 (4) RCR (Civil) 232, cited by the counsel for the petitioners, is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the order of status quo in the present case was not a vague order but was actually meant to protect the, prima facie, possession of the plaintiff-respondent. In view of above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE May 11, 2011. rka . . . 6