IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 01.04.2011 C.R.No.5120 of 2010 Bimla Rani ...Petitioner Versus Murari Lal, Secretary and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Deepak Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The present revision petition arising out of an order passed by the learned trial Court declining ad interim injunction sought by the petitioner and affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court. The plaintiff has sought injunction on the ground that she is in possession of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- and that she is regularly paying rent. There was a written compromise dated 14.04.2006, whereby Rs.2,50,000/- was agreed to be paid to the petitioner, but the defendants are threatening to forcibly dis-possess the plaintiff. It may be noticed that the present suit for injunction was filed on 29.04.2006 alongwith an application for ad interim injunction. The defendants have denied the tenancy and any compromise. Both the Courts have found that the petitioner has failed to produce any receipt of payment of rent or to prove that there was any compromise ever executed between the parties. C.R.No.5120 of 2010 It has been found that there is no evidence of payment of rent by the petitioner. It is not even averred that to whom the petitioner was paying rent. The learned Appellate Court has examined the alleged compromise deed on record and found that such compromise deed does not refer to any tenancy. It appears that soon after petitioner entered into possession, she filed present suit for injunction by alleging false plea of being tenant. The defendant is Trust managing religious place of worship. The petitioner has no right to seek injunction in respect of such premise of religious institution, as she is rank-trespasser, who has sought intervention of the Court soon after she entered into possession of the premises. Both the Courts have taken a concurrent view that the petitioner is not a tenant and is not entitled to injunction. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Courts below, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 01.04.2011 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2 C.R.No.5120 of 2010 3