IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.6953 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on 26.10.2010. Vishal Gupta and others --Petitioners vs. Anil Kumar -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.K.Pippat,Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Sumit Jain,Advocate,for the petitioners Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.8.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Ludhiana, by which application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short,'CPC') has been allowed reversing the order of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana dated 26.11.2009 by which it was dismissed. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he is a tenant in the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs.700/- from the last 30 years. The suit had to be filed because the defendants had made an abortive attempt to dispossess him on 28.10.2009. In the written statement, it was alleged that the plaintiff is in possession of only 2 rooms, one kitchen and one bath room having been inducted as a tenant by Rachhpal Singh as a licensee. It is further alleged that they have purchased the property from the said Rachhpal Singh and had terminated the license of the plaintiff on 30.9.2009, therefore, he cannot continue in possession in the garb of temporary injunction. Learned trial Court had dismissed the application for CR No.6953 of 2008 (O&M) -2- temporary injunction, but the learned Appellate Court has allowed the same precisely on the ground that the plaintiff had claimed his possession over the suit property as a tenant, whereas the defendants had alleged his possession as licensee but also alleged that the said license has already been terminated. The question thus arose as to which stand is correct. At this stage, without appreciating the evidence, it was not found feasible to opine in favour of either of the party but one fact remains undisputed that the plaintiff was not holding the premises as a stranger or as a tress-passer. He was in permissible possession, therefore, to my mind, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly held that the question of status of the plaintiff is to be decided by the trial Court after the evidence is led by the parties and if at this stage, the possession of the plaintiff is allowed to be disturbed, he would suffer irreparable loss and injury because prima-facie case is in his favour being a tenant or even as a licensee. In view thereof, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Court. As such, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. Oct 26,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge