IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2356/2009 Date of Decision:29.4.2009. Ajay Kumar and another ..........Petitioners Versus Madan Lal Khanna ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. B.D.Sharma,Advocate for the petitioners-defendants. JASWANT SINGH,J Petitioners-defendants (landlords) have directed this Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff (tenant) was accepted, the order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)Jalandhar, dismissing the injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was set aside and the petitioners-defendants were restrained from interfering with the respondent- plaintiff (tenant) in using the “Hathi Gate” (main entrance) during the pendency of the suit filed by the plaintiff. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. A perusal of the paper book reveals that a landlord-tenant dispute in the shape of suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, filed by respondent-tenant is going on between the parties. In the said suit the CR NO.2356/2009 2 respondent-tenant filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining the petitioners-defendants from dispossessing him, from withholding basic amenities (i.e. use of “Hathi Gate” for ingress and egress, supply of water etc.) to the tenanted premises in his possession. Petitioners-defendants, upon notice contested the suit as well as injunction application. The learned trial Court, also appointed a Local Commissioner and after perusing the record (including the report of the Local Commissioner) vide order dated 24.10.2007 dismissed the injunction application holding that (i) the plaintiff has failed to show existence of separate entry in the tenanted shop, which leads to the tenanted portion in his possession; and (ii) if respondent-plaintiff is allowed to use this alleged common passage for his ingress and egress, then it will affect the privacy of the defendants who are landlord. Aggrieved against the same respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal which stood accepted by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, vide impugned order dated 24.10.2007. Hence the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of hearing could not dispute the fact that the said “Hathi Gate” is the main entrance gate leading to a common passage being used by the respondent-plaintiff since his becoming a tenant in the year 1965-66. It is also not disputed that the separate entrance in possession of the respondent-plaintiff, which is 3 feet higher than the road level, leads to one of the shops on the ground floor and as such cannot be used for the purpose of ingress and egress to the remaining part of the area under the occupation of the respondent-plaintiff(tenant). It is also not disputed CR NO.2356/2009 3 that regarding the dispute over the use of said “Hathi Gate” the matter had also reached the police authorities, where statements of the parties were also recorded by the DSP(D) wherein they have admitted that the said “Hathi Gate” will remain open till 10 pm whereafter a lock having two keys will be put on this Gate and one key each will remain with the petitioner-defendants and respondent-plaintiff. In view of the facts emerging from the record, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly accepted the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff and no fault can be found with the same. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. However, nothing stated above, shall be taken as an expression on the merits of the suit pending between the parties. 29.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge CR NO.2356/2009 4