Civil Revision No. 5231 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5231 of 2010 Date of decision : August 20, 2010 Jasbir Kaur ....Petitioner versus Rupinder Kaur and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is revision petition by plaintiff no. 1 Jasbir Kaur under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Suit was filed by the petitioner and her father Gurmit Singh- proforma respondent no. 2 against respondent no. 1-defendant Rupinder Kaur. The plaintiffs alleged that they are tenants in the suit property comprising of one room, kitchen, latrine and bath room on first floor of House No. 89, Butrela, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh under the defendant on monthly rent of Rs 1000/-. They are occupying the said premises along with mother, sister and two daughters of the petitioner. However, the defendant threatened to dispossess them from the suit property forcibly. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction. Plaintiffs Civil Revision No. 5231 of 2010 -2- by moving separate application claimed temporary injunction restraining defendant from dispossessing plaintiffs from the aforesaid premises during the pendency of the suit. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide order dated 16.12.2008 Annexure P/5, allowed plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendant from using any illegal force in disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property except in due course of law, till the disposal of the suit. However, appeal preferred by defendant against the said order has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 11.08.2010, Annexure P/1, which has been impugned by plaintiff no. 1 in the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court after appreciating material on record rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are prima facie in possession of the suit property and have made out all the necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction and the learned lower appellate court has reversed the order of the trial court without sufficient grounds. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but find no merit therein. The plaintiffs have concealed material facts. Defendant- respondent had already filed ejectment petition against petitioner's sister Manjit Kaur and brother Surinder Singh seeking their ejectment from the suit property and other property. The said ejectment petition was allowed Civil Revision No. 5231 of 2010 -3- ex parte. However, ultimately this Court vide order dated 4.11.2009 in CR No. 1994 of 2009, titled Manjit Kaur versus Rupinder Kaur and another set aside the ex parte ejectment order subject to certain conditions. It is, thus, apparent that respondent-defendant is seeking eviction from her premises in due course of law by filing ejectment petition. The plaintiffs in the instant suit concealed the aforesaid litigation and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to discretionary relief of temporary injunction. In addition to the aforesaid, even on merits the plaintiffs have not made out case for temporary injunction. Mere obtaining of telephone connection, voter card or ration card at this address by the plaintiffs would not depict that they are tenants in the suit property because even according to the defendant-respondent, sister and brother of petitioner-plaintiff no. 1 i.e. daughter and son of plaintiff no. 2 are tenants in the suit property and therefore, telephone connection, voter card and ration card could be obtained at the said address even by plaintiff no. 2. On the contrary, the plaintiffs who claimed to be tenants in the suit property since December, 2004 have not placed on record any document to depict their tenancy. They have not produced any rent receipt in support of their version. On the one hand, petitioner's sister Manjit Kaur was fighting litigation with the defendant-respondent no. 1 and on the other hand, plaintiffs came with the aforesaid version. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after passing of order dated 4.11.2009, Annexure P/6 by this Court, Manjit Kaur did not contest the ejectment petition. This contention would reveal as to why the instant suit has been filed. Manjit Kaur was directed to pay rent of the demised premises since April, 2005 to October, 2009 @ Rs 4500/- per Civil Revision No. 5231 of 2010 -4- month. Possibly Manjit Kaur did not want to pay the said rent and therefore, might not have contested the ejectment petition thereafter and present suit is a device to frustrate the execution of ejectment order which is stated to have been passed again against Manjit Kaur and Surinder Singh sister and brother respectively of the petitioner. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court. The said judgment is perfectly justified. The claim of the plaintiffs is unfounded and dishonest. There is no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 20, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'