Civil Revision No. 2417 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2417 of 2007 Date of decision: September 16, 2008 Raj Kumar …..PETITIONER Versus Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Another …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Anil Shukla, Advocate Mr Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. The petitioner filed a suit for the grant of permanent injunction so as to restrain the respondents from interfering into his peaceful possession over the suit property, measuring 38 sq. yards and a verandah, measuring 8' wide and from dispossessing him from the suit property or demolishing any part thereof. Along with the suit, he also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for the grant of ad-interim injunction. The said application was partly accepted by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridabad on 26.7.2006 by restraining the respondents from interfering into the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of shop No. 32 or to demolish any part thereof. However, the same was dismissed qua the verandah, measuring 8' wide on the ground that it had been illegally encroached upon by the petitioner and the respondents had every right to remove the said Civil Revision No. 2417 of 2007 -2- encroachment. Aggrieved of the dismissal of his application qua the verandah, measuring 8' wide, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was, however, dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad on 25.4.2007. The petitioner is now before this Court by filing the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The claim of the petitioner was based on photo copy of a letter dated 15.6.1976, issued by Administrator, Faridabad Complex, Administration, Ballabgarh Zone whereby land, measuring 19 x 18 sq. feet was sold in favour of his father Arjan Dass. The said area came to be 38 sq. yards and on the same, the petitioner and his father had constructed a shop. In front of the said plot/shop, there is a verandah, measuring 8' wide, to which the petitioner also staked his claim. The verandah was to be used as a covered passage by the passers-by and the general public. This verandah was not part of the land sold by the Administrator to father of the petitioner. In such a situation, there was, prima facie, no case made out to grant the relief of ad-interim injunction to the petitioner so as to restrain the respondents from interfering in his possession over the verandah in question, as the same was found to have been encroached upon by the petitioner and a show cause notice dated 19.6.2006 was served upon him by the respondents, asking him to remove the unauthorized construction in the verandah. Mere fact that payment of house tax had been made by the petitioner, did not give him any right to convert the verandah portion into a shop by raising construction over it. The verandah was meant for a common passage for the use of customers and passage to the adjoining shops in the market. Civil Revision No. 2417 of 2007 -3- The petitioner has also not been able to prima facie establish that he had raised the construction in the verandah portion after taking prior permission/sanction from the respondents. The impugned orders passed by learned lower Courts while declining to grant any ad-interim injunction to the petitioner in respect of verandah measuring 8' wide, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. September 16, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE