Civil Revision No. 5215 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 19345-46-CII of 2008 and Civil Revision No. 5215 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.08.2009 Bhajan Singh ....Petitioner versus Mohinder Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) CM No. 19345-CII of 2008 Allowed. The applicant-petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-3 and detailed affidavit, and is permitted to place on record true typed copies of Annexure P1 to P3 and permitted to file short affidavit. CR No. 5215 of 2008 and CM No. 19346-CII of 2008 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar,accepting the appeal filed by the defendant/respondents, against the order passed by the learned trial Court, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff/petitioner brought a suit for permanent Civil Revision No. 5215 of 2008 (O&M) -2- injunction, restraining the defendant/respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from one room, latrine and bathroom, which were said to be in his possession being tenant. The pleaded case of the petitioner was, that the property in dispute i.e. house No. 35-A, Shantipura, Jalandhar, was owned by one Smt. Pritam Kaur, who had rented out the same to Sh. Parkash Singh, father of the petitioner, and husband of respondent No. 1 and father of other respondents. The plaintiff/petitioner further pleaded that Parkash Singh died in the year 1999, and after his death, the petitioner along with other legal heirs, inherited the tenancy rights. The suit was contested, wherein factum of tenancy created in favour of Parkash Singh about 30 years back was not disputed. The stand taken was, that defendant No. 1 was coming in possession of the house in her own rights, as the tenancy came to an end when portion of the building in dispute was transferred to her by Pritam Kaur- landlord/owner. The learned trial Court did not accept the plea taken by the defendants, and found that there was prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, as he was in possession of one room, latrine and bathroom and was held entitled to protection of the Court from his dispossession illegally, except with due process of law. The learned appellate Court reversed the finding by recording as under: - “Before granting an ad-interim injunction, the learned trial court was required to record its independent findings on the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The finding was recorded, only Civil Revision No. 5215 of 2008 (O&M) -3- regarding irreparable loss and no finding was recorded on the other two issues. In the absence of findings on those two issues in favour of the plaintiff, such an ad interim injunction could not have been granted. In the first portion of the order, the learned trial court ordered the learned trial court ordered the parties to maintain statues quo regarding possession and in the next stroke of the pen restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from this property. How there can be two such contradictory orders. It is admitted fact that one electricity connection is already installed in the house in dispute. The defendants have been able to show prima facie that defendant No. 1 was a tenant in this property and after the same was given to her by the landlord she is coming in possession therefore as owner. No other electricity connection can be installed against her consent. She submitted an affidavit for not giving electric connection the name of the plaintiff and Photostat copy of that affidavit is also on the record of the trial court. That evidence was also ignored by the learned trial court while deciding the application. The plaintiff has not been able to show that he is in possession of the house in dispute as a co tenant. It is defendant No. 1, who is coming in possession thereof as owner. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff for the grant of ad interim injunction. When the plaintiff has failed to prove any prima facie case in his favour, it cannot be held that the absence of convenience is on his side or that he would suffer irreparable loss in case ad- interim injunction is not granted.” The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground, that the learned lower appellate Court mis-read the documents placed on record to come to the Civil Revision No. 5215 of 2008 (O&M) -4- conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove the prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss and, therefore, was not entitled to temporary injunction. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that once the factum of tenancy in favour of Parkash Singh was admitted, and it was also admitted that the plaintiff/petitioner was his son, he had right of inheritance of the tenancy, even in case, the ownership of the property was acquired by any third party, as he was still to continue as tenant by way of inheritance. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends, that the learned appellate Court erred in law in coming to the conclusion, that the defendant/respondents were able to show prima facie, that defendant No. 1 was tenant in the property and after it was transferred to her by the landlord, she was in possession thereof as owner. The finding of the learned District Judge is based on Annexure P-2, which reads as under: - “That Smt. Pritam Kaur wife of S. Harbans Singh is the owner of the house No. 35 Shantipura, Jalandhar. That now a new gate has been constructed on the western side of this plot i.e. on the road side and said Smt. Mohinder Kaur will use the gate for incoming and outgoing purposes.” The second document, on which reliance was placed, is Annexure P-3, which reads as under: - “Mohinder Kaur wife of Parkash Singh son of Kishan Singh aged 42 years, housewife, resident of Shanti Pura, Ladowali road, Jalandhar on S.A. State that I tender Rs.910/- being rent from October, 1989 to April, 1990 at the rate of Rs.130/- per month, interest Civil Revision No. 5215 of 2008 (O&M) -5- Rs.70/- and cost assessed by the court Rs.40/- totaling Rs.1020/- (Rupees one thousand and twenty only) Sd/- Mohinder Kaur RO&AC Sd/- 26.7.90 Sd/- Statement Sh. B.S. Deol, Advocate counsel for the petitioner/N/o Stated that I receive the rent under protest as it is insufficient and invalid.” The statements cannot be said to be documents of title, under which the ownership could be transferred to Mohinder Kaur. The petitioner proved his possession, by leading evidence, i.e. ration card and electricity connection was also sanctioned in his name by the Punjab State Electricity Board, in view of his possession. The judgment of learned appellate Court is, thus, outcome of mis-reading of documents and the pleading. The learned appellate Court mis-applied law to reverse the findings recorded by learned trial Court. For the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the order passed by the learned trial Court is restored, but with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that nothing stated above be taken to be an opinion on the merits of the case. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 24, 2009 R.S.