IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.9 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 08.01.2010 Liaka Ram ... Appellant versus Surinder Pal ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for mandatory injunction directing the appellant to hand over the possession of Booth No.49, Sector 4, Panchkula by holding that the respondent was a tenant of the booth in dispute while the appellant had forcibly dispossessed him in the year 2001. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the respondent was in possession of the booth in dispute and he was forcibly dispossessed by the appellant. The only question of law which has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is whether the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable or not. In my opinion, the Ld. Appellate Court has rightly considered this issue and keeping in view the fact that the RSA No.9 of 2010 (O&M) -2- respondent had sought relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, has held that such a suit is maintainable. Holding this proposed question against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with the clarification that as per the case of the respondent himself, he would be liable to pay rent @ Rs.1,500/- per month from the date when the appellant vacates the booth in dispute. January 08, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE