In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4481 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: August 26, 2009 Laxman Dass Kathuria .. Petitioner Vs. Preeti Verma and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the order dated 6.8.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, dismissing the tenant's suit for possession, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (herein referred as 'the Act'). The averments as set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff and Jitender Kathuria-defendant No.3 (now defendant No.6) his son, were the co-tenants under the defendants No.1 and 2 in the demised premises for the last about 15 years at a monthly rent of Rs.170/-. They were running a tailoring shop in the demised premises. The defendants No.1 and 2- respondents (herein referred as 'the defendants No.1 and 2) filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction), Act, 1973 (herein referred as 'the Rent Act) against the plaintiff and defendant No.3. During the pendency of the said petition, they filed two other petitions in the court of Rent Controller, Gurgaon. It is further alleged that on the intervening night of 15/16.3.2005, the defendants No.1 and 2 with an active connivance of defendant No.3 got the possession of the shop forcibly and without consent of the plaintiff, under a compromise. The plaintiff claiming that he was forcibly dispossessed filed a suit on 25.3.2005 under Section 6 of the Act. The suit was contested denying all the allegations and stating that the defendant No.3 was exclusively running the shop in the name and style of M/s Jeetu Fashion for the last about 8 years and the plaintiff had sublet the shop to the defendant No.3 much prior to the filing of the suit, Civil Revision No. 4481 of 2008 -2- whereas, the plaintiff himself started other business is doing other business for many years so he is not entitled to claim possession. J.P.Verma father of the defendants No.1 and 2 had purchased the suit property along with other property comprised in Khasra No.EP173/523 situated at Jacobpura from Ravinder Nath Juneja vide sale deed dated 22.9.1993 for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-. Defendant's father died on 25.10.1994 and without having become the owners of the suit property filed the petition for ejectment on the ground of sub-letting land bonafide need for personal use. During the pendency of the petition, the defendant No.3 on the basis of the agreement/ compromise after receiving a sum of Rs.8 lacs from the defendants and vacated the premises. Now the plaintiff has no right to ask for restoration of the possession. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit is within limitation?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act, conduct?OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 7. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD 8. Relief. Both the parties led evidence and ultimately the trial court while holding that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 Jitender Kathuria were the co-tenants in the shop, Jitender Kathuria being a co-tenant compromised the litigation, made a statement in the court on 16.3.2005 before the Rent Controller, Gurgaon disclosing the compromise, resultantly, the shop was vacated. Arguments heard. Record perused. Civil Revision No. 4481 of 2008 -3- As regards the compromise, it has been strenuously contended that since the plaintiff was the tenant and Jitender Kathuria was stated to be a sub-tenant, therefore, Jitender Kathuria could not hand over the possession to the landlord without his consent, but it may be observed that plaintiff was not a party to the compromise but the defendant No.3 made a categoric statement in the court on 16.3.2005 making compromise, but the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner i.e. tenant did not object to the said statement and the same was not challenged in the court and he allowed the petition to be dismissed as withdrawn which amounts to accepting the statement of Jitender Kathuria with regard to compromise and delivering the possession of the same to the defendants No.1 and 2. Now coming to the plea with regard to illegal possession, the plaintiff himself submitted that he and Jitender Kathuria were co-tenants, therefore, delivery of possession by one of the tenant is binding upon the other tenant and he could claim any damages against the co-tenant who delivered the possession, but he could not say that the possession was illegally delivered to the defendants No.1 and 2. In any case, even if we go by the plea of sub-letting as set out by the defendant, since the sub-lettee who was in actual possession the premises, delivered the possession of the same to the defendant No.1, therefore, such possession also cannot be said to be illegal as the provisions of law bar the contract between the sub-letting and the court cannot protect the illegal act as entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 with regard to subletting. From the circumstances, it also transpires that Jitender Kathuria under compromise received a sum of Rs.8 lacs and vacated the premises. It appears that he made this statement in the court with the consent of the plaintiff and thereafter resiled from the statement and thereby he in collusion with the defendant No.3 have got filed the present suit. As such, findings returned by the court below on the issues stand affirmed. Finding no merits in the petition the same is dismissed. August 26, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge