C.R.No.3434 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3434 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.7.2011 Dinesh K Rajpal ….Petitioner Vs. Ashok and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J By filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, plaintiff-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.3.2011 (P.4) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala whereby an appeal filed by him against the order dated 8.12.2009 (P.3) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ambala Cantt dismissing the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.123 dated 16.7.2009 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from intefering into his peaceful possession regarding the house in dispute. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. Upon notice, the same was opposed by the defendants-respondents. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 8.12.2009. On an appeal having been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner C.R.No.3434 of 2011 #2# against the order dated 8.12.2009, the same has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, hence the present petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have gravely erred while dismissing the application of the plaintiff- petitioner for grant of interim injunction resulting into miscarriage of justice. As per the own case of the petitioner, one Chhuni Lal was the owner of the house in dispute and the plaintiff-petitioner was his tenant. It is also an admitted fact that said Chhuni Lal had died. It is also not in dispute that at present defendant/respondent Nos.1 & 2 are owners of the house. Plaintiff-petitioner has nowhere disclosed that on which date, he was inducted as a tenant in the house in dispute. No material has been placed on record by the plaintiff-petitioner that any rent note or lease deed was ever executed by said Chhuni Lal with him. There is nothing on record to substantiate that any payment of rent has been made by the plaintiff-petitioner to show that he was a tenant. Even there is nothing on record to show that any attempt was made by the plaintiff-petitioner to pay the rent by way of bank draft or cheque. In fact, the plaintiff-petitioner has failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant rather the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that he is a tres-passer and defendant-respondent Nos.1 & 2 are the true owners of the house in dispute. The learned Appellate Court has also concurred with the C.R.No.3434 of 2011 #3# conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court and found no ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court. Keeping in view the fact that there are concurrent findings of both the courts below and no material has been placed on record by the plaintiff-petitioner to differ with the same, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 11.3.2011 (P.4) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. July 25, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE