CR No.5198 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5198 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.8.2010 Balvir Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Jasvir Singh and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.20736-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.5198 of 2010 (O&M) This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby the order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the trial Court under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has been set aside and the prayer for ad interim injunction has been dismissed. As per the averments, the petitioner is a tenant in the suit property which is owned by respondent No.2-Amarjit Singh. It has been further averred that the tenancy created in favour of the petitioner was oral by Jasvir Singh-respondent No.1. Since Jasvir Singh-respondent No.1 wanted to increase the rent and therefore, started threatening the petitioner to forcibly dispossess him, the petitioner filed the instant suit for permanent injunction stating therein that he was in settled possession of the property CR No.5198 of 2010 (O&M) 2 and therefore, he may not be dispossessed except in accordance with law. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was also filed which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.2.2010 and the respondents were directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the property during the pendency of the suit. The aforesaid order dated 17.2.2010 was challenged by Amarjit Singh-respondent No.2 by filing an appeal which was accepted by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 12.8.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the alleged validity of the tenancy executed by respondent No.1-Jasvir Singh in favour of the petitioner is yet to be seen by taking evidence on record and therefore, at this stage when the petitioner is admittedly in possession, he is entitled to protect his settled possession, even if the same is termed as unauthorized, as an irreparable loss and injury is going to be caused to him if his possession is not protected. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is the owner of the suit property and the petitioner is claiming possession on the basis of some alleged tenancy created by respondent No.1 in his favour. However, there is nothing on record to show that respondent No.1 was authorized to act on behalf of respondent No.2. At the most, the petitioner is in unauthorized possession. The argument of the learned counsel is that even an unauthorized person in a settled possession is entitled to protect his possession and can be evicted only in accordance with law. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (D) by LRs. v. Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 519. CR No.5198 of 2010 (O&M) 3 This Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh v. Divisional Forest Officer and another 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 394, after distinguishing the aforesaid view in Rame Gowda's case, has laid down that at the asking of an unauthorized person, injunction cannot be issued in his favour and against a true owner. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, I do not find any merit in this petition and no relief can be granted in this revision petition. Dismissed. August 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE