In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1569 of 2009 Date of decision: May 27, 2009 Arun Kumar alias Billa .. Petitioner Vs. Bela Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4.10.2007 (Annexure P-3) as well as dated 18.2.2009 (Annexure P-4), passed by both the courts below, whereby the application of the petitioner-plaintiff (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. The petitioner sought injunction against the allottee of the kiosk restraining his dispossession from the said kiosk on the ground that he is a sub-tenant over the kiosk, on the basis of the agreement dated 5.10.2001 executed between the parties. To the contrary, defendants No.1 and 2 while contesting the application submitted that they never rented out the premises in dispute. However, they had given the drilling machine and welding set @ Rs.600/- per month for use and also allowing the place to use, but neither they parted with the possession of the kiosk nor they rented it out. He was also not handed over the exclusive possession of machines along with the place. Since the status of the plaintiff is not better then that of a licensee, therefore, he is not entitled to any injunction. Both the courts below have declined to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Heard. Perusal of the agreement dated 5.10.2001 between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, reveals that kiosk in question is under the tenancy Civil Revision No. 1569 of 2009 -2- *** of the defendant No.1. Any way, the defendant No.1 has a better title over the kiosk, then that of the the plaintiff. Agreement further reveals that welding set, drill machine including lathe machine which were lying in the kiosk and owned by defendant-respondent No.1 were given to the plaintiff for use on payment of Rs.600/- per month. The agreement further reveals that so long as the kiosk will remain in existence defendant No.1 would be entitled to use the same and he will also pay the aforesaid bills. The agreement further reveals that lathe machine will be used by defendant No.1, whereas, the drilling machine would be used by both of them. The agreement further recites that if the welding set and lathe machine go out of order, then the expenses for repair of these machines would be borne half and half by both of them. Both shall use welding and drill machine and Kharad shall be used by defendant No.1 only. Thus, the agreement, transpires that the plaintiff was only entitled to use the place and the aforesaid machines and the defendant No.1 never parted with his possession and the plaintiff also never came in exclusive possession of the premises. There is no recital in the agreement that the plaintiff was inducted as tenant @ Rs.100/- per month as claimed by him in the plaint. Thus, there is no evidence on the record to prima facie show that the plaintiff was ever a sub-tenant or in exclusive possession of kiosk in question. Both the courts below have not held the plaintiff to be entitled to any injunction. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. May 27, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge