C.R. No. 1139 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 1139 of 2009 Date of decision: April 2,2009 Brij Mohan son of Chaman Lal ..Petitioner Versus Anita wife of Sat Pal and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for respondents ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the judgment and order dated 1.11.2008 passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar whereby appeal filed by the defendant-respondent has been accepted and the order dated 23.2.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar on the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been set aside. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant/respondents from forcibly dispossessing him from the suit premises pleading that he is in possession of the suit premises being a tenant and that he is paying rent to the respondents. As the respondents were threatening the petitioner either to vacate the premises or enhance the rent and keeping in view the threats that he will be forcibly dispossessed, the petitioner filed the present suit for permanent injunction to protect his rights from illegal acts of the respondents. Along with this suit, petitioner also filed an application for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his peaceful C.R. No. 1139 of 2009 2 possession and from dispossessing him forcibly except in due course of law. The suit of the petitioner was contested by the respondents by filing a written statement, wherein relationship of landlord and tenant is denied and it was pleaded that the father of the petitioner was their tenant and in an earlier suit, a compromise was effected with his father. According to which, he was to vacate the premises up to 11.12.2007. The petitioner filed replication and controverted the contents of the written statement and stated that petitioner is the tenant of the respondents in the premises and his father was not a tenant in the premises in question. The trial Court after considering the averments and the arguments of the parties, prima facie was of the view that balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner and allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and respondents were restrained from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from the suit property except in due course of law. Aggrieved from the judgment/order dated 23.2.2008 passed by the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal which was accepted by the lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment/order dated 1.11.2008 and order of the trial Court was set aside and application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. Still not satisfied, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the aforesaid judgment/order of the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that possession of the plaintiff/petitioner has been proved from the documents on record which were issued by the Cantonment Board and it is established that the petitioner is doing business in the shop in dispute and thus, he was entitled to protect his possession and possession from him can be taken from him only in due course of law. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed as he was not in possession of the premises in dispute as a tenant and C.R. No. 1139 of 2009 3 earlier Shri Chaman Lal, father of the petitioner was their tenant and in the earlier litigation between the respondents and father of the petitioner which was filed on 17.11.2003, Shri Chaman Lal had categorically stated that he was tenant in the shop in dispute. Ultimately, the matter was settled and petitioner's father was to hand over the possession up to 31.12.2007. According to the counsel for the respondents, the present suit is nothing but a clever device not to vacate the shop and to by pass the earlier statement/compromise made by the father of the petitioner and thus the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and the present petition which has no merit is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. There is no dispute about the fact that two documents were placed on record by the plaintiff purported to have been issued by the Cantonment Board wherein he is described to be resident of demised premises. He might be in possession of the premises in dispute in the capacity of son of Chaman Lal. But the question in this case to be decided is whether the petitioner is in possession as a tenant or not. It is clearly established from the documents placed on record with regard to the earlier litigation against Chaman Lal father of the petitioner that he was the tenant of respondents and a settlement took place between him and the respondents in the court and according to that settlement he was to vacate the premises by 31.12.2007. Thus, prima facie it was Chaman Lal father of the petitioner who was in possession of the demised premises as a tenant in the year 2003 and had agreed to vacate the same by the aforesaid date. In view of the aforesaid fact, it was not possible for the plaintiff/petitioner to be a tenant under the defendants. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is a statutory tenant under the defendants for the last 15 years. The suit has been filed in the year 2007. Thus according to him he is in possession as a tenant since 1992-93 prima facie it seems to be not possible as in the suit filed by his father in the year 2003, he was stated to be the tenant in the premises in dispute. C.R. No. 1139 of 2009 4 In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the lower Appellate Court. The observations made above while disposing of this revision petition shall not be treated as opinion of the counsel on merits of the case. No merit. Dismissed. April 2, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE