Civil Revision No. 2705 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2705 of 2011 Date of Decision: 6.5.2011 *** Shree Sant Nischal Singh Santpura Trust Yamuna Nagar (Regd.) & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Mahant Jagmohan Singh Head Chela .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners-defendants are aggrieved with order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the learned trial Court on an application under Section 151 CPC filed by respondent-plaintiff, whereby the petitioners are restrained from recovering any rent from the tenants of the shops situated within the premises of Dera Santpura (for brevity, referred to as Dera). Heard. The history of the case, in brief, is that, plaintiff Mahant Jagmohan Singh filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from interfering in the management, control and possession of the plaintiff over the Dera and along with its connected properties, as detailed in the head note of the plaint. It was his case that by virtue of compromise dated 21.3.2000 effected between plaintiff Jagmohan Singh and defendant Karamjit Singh, the former was given complete charge of the Dera and its shops, Sukhmani Press, Bhai Kanhiya Sahib Charitable Hospital, Dispensary and other properties situated within the premises of Dera while the latter was given the charge of Gurudwara Thara Sahib Jodian and Shambu Gurudwara and management of other institutions situated Civil Revision No. 2705 of 2011 2 within the precincts of Dera. The defendant, who contested the suit, denied the execution of any such agreement. It is evident from the records that while deciding the application for grant of ad-interim injunction, the plaintiff prima facie and as per the admission of defendants No.1 and 2, was found to be in possession of the aforesaid Dera by virtue of aforesaid compromise dated 21.3.2000, the execution of which was in dispute. In order to preserve the suit property, during the pendency of the suit, the parties were directed to maintain status quo by the learned trial Court vide order dated 4.9.2003. This order remained intact upto the Hon’ble Apex Court, apart from some modification by this Court by putting the plaintiff under obligation to submit the fortnightly returns regularly with regard to the income of the properties in dispute, to the learned trial Court by 15th of each month, apart from imposing a rider that in case the direction is not complied with, the status quo order shall stand automatically vacated. During pendency of suit, an application was filed by the plaintiff restraining the defendants from recovering any rent from the tenants of the shops situated within the Dera premises and further for issuance of a direction to return the amount of rent already recovered by the defendants from the tenant. According to the plaintiff he alone has right to manage the properties of Dera and to recover the rents of the shops situated within the premises of Dera, while the defendant by filing the eviction petitions are getting rent of the shops from the tenants. The application was contested by the defendants on the ground that the tenants were inducted by the Trust, headed by defendant Karamjit Singh and as such there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between them. It was also their stand that the plaintiff earlier was a Trustee of the trust, but was removed by the Trust and hence, he has nothing to do with the tenancy of different tenants. The learned trial Court by dint of impugned order dated 15.2.2011 disposed of the application of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from recovering the rent from the tenants of the shops situated within the precincts of the Dera from the date of passing of order and asked the plaintiff to render the accounts of rent recovered besides other income. So far as the plea of depositing of the rent already recovered by the Civil Revision No. 2705 of 2011 3 defendants, is concerned, a liberty was given to the plaintiff to take such proceedings upon final adjudication of the rights between the parties. While arriving to the said conclusion, the Court below held that since the plaintiff has been prima facie held to be in possession and controlling the management of Dera and its connected properties i.e. suit property including the shops situated within the precincts of the Dera, therefore, the collection of rent of shops situated within the precincts of Dera by defendants is not in accord with the order of status quo passed by the Courts and it is only the plaintiff who is entitled to collent rent from the tenants of shops situated within the precincts of Dera. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is with regard to the control and management of aforesaid Dera and both are staking their respective claims thereupon. The possession of the plaintiff over the Dera and its connected properties and management thereof, as noticed above, is prima facie found upto the highest Court. The plaintiff is not claiming his ownership over the suit properties, but is claiming his right to manage the Dera and its properties. The petitioners, in their reply, filed to the impugned application have not specifically disputed the fact of shops being attached to the Dera, but have pleaded that the same are the ownership of Trust, which is even not disputed by the plaintiff. The defendants have also not disputed the collection of rent from tenants of the shops. It has also come on record that about 100 ejectment petitions are filed by the petitioners against the tenants, through which they are getting the rent. Thus, at this stage, if the plaintiff is asked to collect of rent of the shops, then it certainly would create a confusing state and an addition to the controversy between the parties. It is the duty of the Court not only to preserve the suit property, but also to maintain the sanctity of Holy place and avoid further intricacy and litigation between the parties. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be in the fitness of things if the petitioners/ defendants are directed to deposit the rent received from the shops in the learned trial Court on monthly basis and who is entitled to get the same, shall be decided by the learned trial Court at the time of final decision of the case. It is also directed that a complete detail of the shops and the rent which it carry and the name of tenant be supplied by the petitioners with the inventory of the rent collected per month to the Civil Revision No. 2705 of 2011 4 learned trial Court. It shall also be appreciated that if the Court below devise any method so that the amount deposited with it by the petitioners, may fetch some interest and can be used at an appropriate stage for the welfare and upkeeping of the Dera. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, the instant revision petition stands partly allowed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 06, 2011 Jiten