Civil Revision No. 2331 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1941 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.08.2009 Ram Niwas ....Petitioner Versus M/s Jagan Nath Ram Niwas ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 8405-CII of 2009 Allowed. Applicant-appellant is exempted from filing the certified copies of orders dated 13.1.2009 and 27.7.2007. CR No. 1941 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, restraining the petitioner herein from dispossessing the plaintiff/respondent from shop in dispute, except with due process of law, stands allowed. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for injunction on the plea, that the plaintiff was partner of a firm, which was carrying on the business of hardware and paints etc. under the name and style of M/s Civil Revision No. 2331 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Jagan Nath Ram Niwas, at Bara Hazari Road, Rewari, since 1.4.1992. The partners of the firm were Jagan Nath, Hari Shankar, Smt. Asha rani, Smt. Sunita Rustogi and Smt. Asha Rustogi. Sh. Jagan Nath, one of the partners, died on 14.12.2003 and Sh. Hari Shankar alone was said to be managing the affairs of the business of the plaintiff/firm and having full control over the business, whereas the other partners were sleeping partners. It was the case of the plaintiff/respondent, that the firm was utilising shop No. 6952 for its business, from the date of inception of tenancy, and was also making payment of rent and electricity bills etc. It was also pleaded, that the firm was maintaining regular books of accounts in the ordinary course of business, and filing income tax and sales tax returns. It was said to be in physical possession of the ship. The petitioner was said to be an influential man, and husband of Smt. Asha Devi, one of the sleeping partners. Petitioner wanted to take possession of the shop forcibly with the help of local police. The allegation of the plaintiff was, that the petitioner wanted to dispossess the plaintiff/respondent illegally and forcibly. The suit was contested, in which the possession of the plaintiff/respondent was denied, it was pleaded, that, in fact, it was the petitioner, who was the tenant and paying the rent, and that the plaintiff/respondent had no concern with the shop. The learned Courts below, on the basis of pleadings and documents placed on record, recorded a finding, that possession of the plaintiff/respondent, was duly proved and, therefore, granted injunction. Civil Revision No. 2331 of 2009 (O&M) -3- The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the impugned order, passed by the learned Courts below, cannot be sustained, as the learned Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that the partnership firm was dissolved in the year 2003, thereafter, the possession was that of the petitioner, being a tenant under the landlord. The rent was being paid by petitioner to the landlord. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once it is not in dispute, that the wife of the petitioner was one of the sleeping partners and there were documents on record showing that the partnership business was being run from the premisses in dispute, the possession of firm stood proved. In absence of any document showing, that the firm had handed back the possession to landlord or the petitioner, it could not be said that the respondent/plaintiff was not in possession, as contended. Prima facie the findings recorded by the learned Courts below, are based on pleadings and the documents placed on record, which cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. It is well settled law, that even unauthorised established possession, can be protected from illegal dispossession. The party seeking possession has to follow due process of law. The findings of learned Courts below, therefore, cannot be faulted with. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 07, 2009 R.S.