-1- Civil Revision No.96 of 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 06, 2011. Civil Revision No.96 of 2011. Ram Milan ... Petitioner VERSUS Municipal Council, Gurgaon ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.Jagat Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by both the Courts below whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit filed by him for permanent -2- Civil Revision No.96 of 2011. injunction in respect of the shop in dispute which is in his possession as a tenant, was dismissed. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner is that the Municipal Council, Gurgaon (respondent-defendant), in collusion with the landlord of the shop in question, has ordered demolition of the said shop. However, I do not see any merit in this argument of the learned counsel. Firstly, the plaintiff-petitioner did not implead the landlord of the shop in question as a party in the suit. Needless to say, the plaintiff-petitioner has a remedy against his landlord under the provisions of the Rent Act. Apparently, the instant dispute is between the plaintiff-petitioner and the Municipal Council, Gurgaon. It has come on record that notice under Section 120 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, had been issued by the Municipal Council to the landlord on 10.11.1989 intimating him that the building in question was in a dilapidated condition and could collapse at any point of time and that the landlord was to remove the same. The Building Inspector of the Municipal Council, Gurgaon, had visited the building and had found that its wall had fallen on its own. The building had been declared as dangerous for living. It was on account of these facts that both the Courts below did not find a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in the impugned -3- Civil Revision No.96 of 2011. orders passed by both the Courts below. This revision is, accordingly, hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 06, 2011. JUDGE ak