RSA No.2069 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2069 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 03, 2009 Sunita Rani ...........Appellant Versus Smt.Nirmala Devi and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Gauravjit Singh, Advocate for Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the shop comprising two rooms, a verandah and stair case, situated in Arya Bazar, Kartarpur shown red in the plan attached and taking forcible possession thereof except in due course of law. The suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 16.3.006 and defendants No. 2 and 3 were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and from taking forcible possession of the shop in dispute except the stair case, except in due course of law. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.2 filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 3.3.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant-Sunita Rani. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment, read as under:- “ 2. In brief, the facts of the suit of respondents No. 1 & 2 RSA No.2069 of 2009 (O&M) 2 (hereinafter called the plaintiffs) as set up by them in the plaint before the ld.lower court are that the shop in dispute is comprising two rooms, verandah and stair case at Arya Bazar, Kartarpur, shown red in the site plan and mentioned in detail in the head note of the plaint. Previously, this property was owned by Labhu Ram who gave it on rent to Asa Ram. After the death of Asa Ram, Mahesh Lal alias Ramesh Lal inherited the tenancy rights. Mahesh Pal died on 15.8.90 and plaintiffs became tenants in the demised premises. Appellant Sunita Rani alongwith Hira Lal (hereinafter called the defendants) claim themselves to be owners of the property in dispute having purchased by them from defendant Brij Bhushan. Previously, the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs.1.50 per month, then it was enhanced to Rs.20/- per month. Thereafter, defendants started threatening the plaintiffs to enhance the rent to Rs.300/- per month. Ultimately, on 27.8.96, defendants along with some police officials and others threatened the plaintiff to dispossess them from the suit property illegally and forcibly. Plaintiffs requested them to desist from their evil designs but they refused which compelled the plaintiffs to file the present suit. It is, therefore, prayed that defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the disputed property illegally and forcibly except in due course of law. 3. Suit against defendant No.1 was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.3.06. Defendant No.3 was exparte at the time of passing the judgment and decree under appeal. 4. Defendant No.2 in her written statement took preliminary RSA No.2069 of 2009 (O&M) 3 objections such as plaintiff No.1 has no locus standi and cause of action to file this suit by her act and conduct; it is bad for mis joinder of parties. Description of the property has been wrongly mentioned in the site plan. Neither the stair case was rented out to the tenant nor it is in possession of the tenant. This suit has been filed with malafide intention. 5. On merits, it is submitted that it is wrong that shop comprises of two rooms. However, there is only one verandah and stair case which is not part of the tenanted premises nor the stair case is in possession of the plaintiffs. It is wrong that Mahesh Pal inherited the tenancy. It is denied that Mahesh Pal died on 15.8.90. It is incorrect that plaintiffs became tenants in the demised premises by inheritance. Only plaintiff No.2 Raj Kumar took the shop in dispute on rent @ Rs.300/- per month vide rent note dated 27.8.90. Plaintiff No.1 has no concern with the premises in dispute. All other parawise contents f the plaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. 6. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant No.2 reiterating the facts pleaded in the plaint and controverted those of the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP 2. Relief.” RSA No.2069 of 2009 (O&M) 4 After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession. Plaintiffs led oral evidence. In the written statement, defendant No.2 admitted that the plaintiff No.2 was in possession of the suit property as a tenant. The said fact was also admitted by defendant No.2, while appearing in the witness box as DW1. The case of defendant No.2 was that plaintiff No. 1 Nirmala Devi had no locus standi to seek injunction against defendant No.2. However, Nirmala Devi is the mother of plaintiff No.2-Raj Kumar and both of them are apparently in possession of the property in dispute after the death of Mahesh Pal. Since the possession of plaintiff No. 2 has been categorically admitted by defendant No.2, both the Courts below rightly held that the plaintiffs could not be dispossessed from the property in dispute except in due course of law. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge September 03, 2009 arya