CR No.4982 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4982 of 2010 Date of decision: 11.8.2010 Subhash Chander Malhotra ......Petitioner(s) Versus Salil Chopra and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the caveator-respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.19906-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.4982 of 2010 The petitioner is landlord of the suit property. Respondent No.1 is a tenant and is carrying on manufacturing business. He filed a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the petitioner. Along with the suit, he filed an application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC restraining the petitioner and other defendants from disconnecting the electricity supply. It may not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner had conceded that plaintiff-respondent No.1 shall not be dispossessed from the shop in dispute illegally and forcibly. However, it was argued that the petitioner was not going to supply the electricity to respondent No.1 against the provisions of law. Vide order dated 4.6.2010, the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar allowed the said application for ad interim injunction CR No.4982 of 2010 2 observing that defendant-respondents No.2 and 3 were liable to provide separate electric connection to respondent No.1 on the completion of all the formalities. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 4.8.2010. It is argued that the petitioner cannot be compelled to give electricity to respondent No.1 against the provisions of law. However, it was argued by counsel for respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 cannot be compelled to deliver the vacant possession of the shop to the petitioner under the threat of disconnection of electricity supply to his shop and he has no right to take the law in his hands and to pressurize the authorities to disconnect the electricity supply to the premises. There is a dispute between the parties with regard to the nature of the possession of respondent No.1 over the premises in dispute. However, it is matter of evidence whether respondent No.1 is a licencee or tenant in the premises in dispute, and this fact can be proved by the parties by leading evidence which is yet to start. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this revision petition is disposed of with the observation that the trial Court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within one year from today. August 11, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE