Civil Revision No. 1045 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1045 of 2009 Date of decision: 9.3.2009 Darshan Lal Semwal ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Meena Bahuguna and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. S.D.ANAND, J. The learned Trial Court dismissed ad-interim stay plea of the plaintiff-petitioner who had sought the restraint of respondent-Housing Board, Haryana from dispossessing him from the premises which are under his unauthorised possession. The view was upheld by the learned Ist Appellate Court which made the following observations in support of the finding of affirmative:- “In these circumstances, the stay application preferred by the appellant-plaintiff cannot be sustained and as such, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Thus, the trial Court order is hereby upheld. Accordingly, the defendants No. 3 i.e. the Housing Board Haryana is hereby put at liberty to take the possession of the demised premises by way of evicting the plaintiff-appellant there-from. However, it is made clear that the Housing Board Haryana would evict the appellant-plaintiff from the disputed house only in accordance with law after adopting the due process of law. Memo of costs Civil Revision No. 1045 of 2009 -2- **** be prepared accordingly.” Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to contest the finding that the Housing Board, Haryana, is proceeding in the matter in accordance with law. His only grievance is that the petitioner being a tenant therein ought to have been afforded an opportunity of a hearing. I called upon him to invite my attention to any provision of the relevant Act which would be supportive of the proposition advocated by him. The poser draws a blank from the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent from the record that the respondent-Housing Board, Haryana, is obtaining possession of the premises under reference in accordance with law. There is neither prima facie case nor balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner for the grant of the ad-interim stay. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 09, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge