C.R. No.7302 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7302 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.11.2010 Neha Chaudhary .……Petitioner Versus Madan Mohan Huria ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-Neha Chaudhary has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, having failed in both the Courts below to secure temporary injunction. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that she is tenant in the disputed property under the defendant-respondent since 14.12.2008 and she paid advance rent for two months till 13.02.2009. On 05.02.2009, she was giving rent to the defendant for the next month, but he refused to receive the same. Rent was sent by money order, but it was also refused. Rent was deposited by the plaintiff by moving application under Section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, the Rent Act), but the said application was withdrawn. The defendant allegedly tried to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly from the suit property compelling the plaintiff to file suit for permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and C.R. No.7302 of 2010 -2- from interfering in her possession thereon. The defendants inter alia pleaded that plaintiff's husband was allowed to live in the suit portion as licensee since January, 2009 till 31.03.2009 on account of studies of his children and the plaintiff was never inducted as tenant. The licence stands terminated by efflux of time, but plaintiff's husband refused to vacate the suit property. Plaintiff's husband has no right to continue to stay in the suit property. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat vide impugned order dated 06.10.2009 Annexure P-1 dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred against the same by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide impugned judgment dated 11.10.2010 Annexure P-2. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is admittedly in possession of the suit property and, therefore, she cannot be dispossessed therefrom except in due course of law even by the defendant-respondent, who is owner of the suit property. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rame Gowda (D) by LRs versus Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs and another, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 519 and judgment of this Court in the case of Mittar Sain versus Municipal Committee, Sadhaura and another, C.R. No.7302 of 2010 -3- 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 618. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention as well as judgments cited at the bar, but the contention is completely devoid of merit. In the instant case, there is no material whatsoever on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner was ever inducted as tenant in the suit property. The petitioner, who is stamp vendor in Court premises, is well aware of the legalities and it appears that she is taking undue advantage thereof. She filed application under Section 6-A of the Rent Act, but withdrew the same. She also tried to create evidence by sending rent by money order. It is not explained as to why the respondent would not have accepted rent just less than two months after the petitioner was allegedly inducted as tenant. This itself would prima facie depict that the petitioner was never inducted as tenant. There is no receipt or other document regarding alleged payment of rent for two months or regarding alleged tenancy. The very fact that the petitioner started creating evidence just after two months of alleged creation of tenancy would depict that she was never inducted as tenant. Within short span of less than two months, even rate of rent would not have increased so as to tempt the landlord to evict the tenant in the greed of getting higher rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically and repeatedly contended that the petitioner has been inducted as tenant and, therefore, she cannot be evicted except in due course of law. However, as noticed hereinabove, there is not even an iota of material on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner was ever inducted as tenant in the suit property. C.R. No.7302 of 2010 -4- Learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently contended that the petitioner is admittedly in possession of the suit property and, therefore, she cannot be dispossessed therefrom except in due course of law. This contention is also completely misconceived and devoid of substance. The defendant-respondent has never admitted the petitioner to be in possession of the suit property. The defendant-respondent rather pleaded that petitioner's husband was inducted as licensee in the suit property and even the said licence stands terminated. Judgment in the case of Mittar Sain (supra) is completely distinguishable because in that case, there was documentary proof in the form of rent receipt depicting that the plaintiff was prima facie tenant. In the instant case, there is no material whatsoever to even remotely depict that the petitioner is tenant in the suit property. Judgment in the case of Rame Gowda (supra) is on completely different set of facts. Both the Courts below have rightly exercised the discretion in the matter of temporary injunction against the petitioner. The said discretion does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders of the Courts below. The revision petition is completely bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 10.11.2010. A. Kaundal