Civil Revision No. 874 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 874 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.2.2010 Yadwinder Deep Singh .. Petitioner v. Suresh Inder Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders, passed by the learned courts below, whereby the application for interim injunction filed by the petitioner-plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of tenanted premises consisting of Ist floor of H. No. 1014, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. Along with the suit, application for interim injunction was filed. The learned court below, though at the initial stage, granted status quo regarding possession of the property, however, later on the stay applciation was dismissed. Even in appeal before the learned court below, the petitioner-plaintiff failed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property in question was taken on rent by the petitioner on 2.8.2008. It was an oral tenancy @ Rs. 15,000/- per month. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards security. Rent for the month of August, 2008 was paid in advance. This was exclusive of electricity and water charges. As per the terms, respondent No. 1- landlord was not to issue any receipt for payment of rent. The amount of rent was being paid regularly and the petitioner was enjoying the property as a tenant. However, suddenly respondent No. 1 in connivance with respondent No. 2 started interfering into the peaceful possession of the petitioner, which necessitated the filing of the suit. Along with the suit, the petitioner had placed on record substantial material to show that he was in fact in possession of the property and living there. These are in the form of telephone bills, statement of bank account, Civil Revision No. 874 of 2010 [2] bill of newspaper hawker and also for purchase of a T.V. He further submitted that the entire material to non-suit the petitioner-plaintiff has been created by the respondents in connivance with each other. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. No doubt, the petitioner has placed on record photo copies of certain documents showing his address as that of the premises, which he claims to be in his possession as a tenant. It is in the form of telephone bills, bank statement etc. However, on a query by the court as to whether there is any material with the petitioner to show that he was ever inducted as a tenant in the premises or for payment of rent for any of the period, the answer was in the negative. As on the basis of the material on record, tentatively it could not be concluded as to how even the telephone connection was released to the petitioner or the bank account opened in his name at the said address, when there was no document with the petitioner to show his rightful possession over the property. Though the suit was filed on 15.11.2008, still it is claimed that rent for the period from December, 2008 to March, 2009 was sought to be paid by issuing a cheque on 21.3.2009. The same was neither offered when it was due nor deposited in the court, if the plea was sought to be raised that respondent No. 1 had refused to accept the same. As against that, document (Annexure P24) has been produced along with the paper book, which is in the form of a rent deed executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 on 7.8.2008 renting out the Ist floor of the house in dispute w.e.f. 1.8.2008 to 30.6.2009 @ Rs. 16,200/- per month. The stamp paper, which was executed for the purpose, had been purchased from E-Sampark Centre opened by Union Territory, Chandigarh on 7.8.2008. Considering the aforesaid facts on record, in my opinion, once the petitioner had not been able to prima facie prove his rightful possession of the property as a tenant, there is no question of grant of any interim stay in his favour. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 10.2.2010 mk