IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08.10.2010 C.R.No.5708 of 2008 (O&M) Satnam Singh ...Petitioner Versus Jagdish Raj Mahajan and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. J.R.Mittal, Sr. Advocate, with M/s B.S.Gill and Kashmir Singh, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. H.N.S.Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.2. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 20.03.2007 and by the learned first Appellate Court on 19.07.2008, whereby an application for ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 21.10.1999, was dismissed. One Jagdish Raj Mahajan-defendant No.1 as owner of the suit property allegedly entered into an agreement to sell the demised property in favour of the present petitioner on 21.10.1999. As per the plaintiff, ` 4 lac were paid as earnest money and the balance sum of ` 3 lac was payable on issuance of no objection certificate. The possession of the demised premises was with Smt. Sham Dulari. The petitioner was given right to take possession from her. It is alleged by the petitioner that in pursuance of such liberty given to the petitioner, he has taken the possession from Sham Dulari and inducted one Harmeet Singh as a tenant. It is the petitioner, who has C.R.No.5708 of 2008 (O&M) obtained electric connection on 29.05.2000 and is making payment to the electricity dues since then. The present suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 21.10.1999 was filed on 6.10.2005. It is alleged that defendant No.1 has executed the sale in favour of defendant No.2 Rupinder Singh on 20.05.2005. The said sale was said to be illegal in view of prior agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. It has also come on record that defendant No.2-Rupinder Singh filed a petition against Harmeet Singh for his eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on 10.12.2005. The said petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller. In appeal against the order of eviction, the petitioner moved an application for impleading himself as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The said application was dismissed. The appeal was also dismissed. Harmeet Singh-tenant filed a revision petition bearing C.R.No.6260 of 2009 before this Court. In the said revision petition, the petitioner again moved an application for impleading himself as a party. The said application was dismissed on 11.11.2009 and the tenant’s revision petition was also dismissed on the same date. The application for ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff on the basis of aforesaid agreement to sell dated 21.10.1999 was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 20.03.2007 and affirmed by the first Appellate Court on 19.07.2008. The learned trial Court has returned a finding that the plaintiff has not brought any material on record to suggest that he came in possession over the suit property legally, but as an owner defendant No.2 is entitled to the possession. It is the said order, which was affirmed in appeal as well. 2 C.R.No.5708 of 2008 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Harmeet Singh was inducted as a tenant by the petitioner and, therefore, even after the eviction of Harmeet Singh as a tenant, the possession will revert back to the petitioner. It is the petitioner, who was deemed to be in possession of the property under the aforesaid agreement to sell dated 21.10.1999. It is also contended that the findings in rent proceedings holding Harmeet Singh to be a tenant and liable to be eviction are not binding on the petitioner, who was not impleaded as a party in the said proceedings and that the plaintiff is entitled to protect his possession, which was delivered to him in terms of the agreement to sell. It is also contended that the plaintiff has concluded his evidence and the case is fixed for the evidence of the defendants. Therefore, at this stage, the parties should be directed to maintain status quo and the suit can be ordered to be decided expeditiously. The defendant-vendee has sought eviction of Harmeet Singh. In the said petition, Harmeet Singh asserted that he is in possession. Satnam Singh (the present petitioner) was examined as RW-2 by Harmeet Singh. After considering the evidence led by the parties including the statement of the petitioner, the learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against Harmeet Singh. The said order attained finality with the dismissal of the civil revision filed by Harmeet Singh on 11.11.2009. Therefore, the stand that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property appears to be accepted. Having obtained an eviction order against Harmeet Singh, the vendee is entitled to execute his order of eviction against Harmeet Singh, who is admittedly in possession, though there is a dispute whether he was inducted as a tenant by Satnam Singh or by the vendee. Since an order of eviction has been passed against Harmeet Singh, it is open to the vendee to 3 C.R.No.5708 of 2008 (O&M) take possession of the tenanted premises from Harmeet Singh in accordance with law. The argument that the possession was delivered to the plaintiff at the time when the parties entered into an agreement, as liberty was given to the petitioner to take possession from Sham Dulari or whether the agreement dated 21.10.1999 was executed by Jagdish Raj Mahajan or that liberty was given to Satnam Singh to take possession from Sham Dulari or not, are the disputed questions, which are required to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties in a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner. But in the present revision, as per the stand of the petitioner himself, it is Harmeet Singh, who is in possession against whom an ejectment order has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any restraint order to protect his possession. The fact that the case is fixed for the evidence of the defendants is not a ground on the basis of which the plaintiff should be granted injunction. The application filed by the petitioner in rent proceedings has been dismissed and order of eviction has been passed against Harmeet Singh in respect of property in dispute. Therefore, I do not find that any prima facie case was made out or balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner, which may entitle him to get restraint order against the defendants. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Courts below, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 08.10.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 4