C.R.No.6837 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6837 of 2009 Date of Decision 23.11.2009 Bachna Ram and other ........ Petitioners Versus Data Ram & another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr.Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. Challenge in the present petition by the defendant is to the orders dated 2.9.2009 and 25.4.2008, passed by the courts below whereby the defendants-petitioners were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs-respondents from the suit property. The defendants-petitioners alleged to have purchase the suit property vide sale deed dated 19.7.1981, from Tulsi. One Bhura was recorded as a person in possession of the land as a Gair Marusi tenant as per the jamabandi for the year 1971-72, on payment 1/3rd of the farm produce on Batai. The said entries were continued in the jamabandi for the years 1986-87, 1991-92, 1996-97 and 2001-2002 as well. The plaintiffs- defendants are the legal heirs of Bhura. Both the Courts have granted ad interim injunction for the reason that the tenancy rights were inherited by the plaintiffs after the death of Bhura, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed forcibly. C.R.No.6837 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioner has purchased the suit property and is in possession from the date of purchase. However, the said argument is not tenable for the reason that even on the date of purchase, Bhura was recorded as a person in possession of the land as Gair Marusi tenant. There is no assertion that the tenant was ordered to be evicted which fact alone could revert the possession in favour of the owner. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the courts below, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. November 23, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) rishu JUDGE