CR No.7050 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 18.8.2011 Parveen Chander Sudan and another ...Petitioner VERSUS S.N. Chakrabarti …Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Satish Goel, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate for respondent Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula allowing a Civil Misc. Appeal of the plaintiff, respondent herein for grant of interim injunction by protecting the possession of the plaintiff, respondent herein. Precisely the facts relevant for the purpose of the present revision petition are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants, petitioners herein from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent on the first floor of H.No.739, Sector 7, Panchkula with a further direction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said premises. Alongwith the suit, an application for interim injunction was filed seeking CR No.7050 of 2010 2 a restraint order by way of interim relief. The plaintiff pleaded that he is the employee of the defendant no.2-Company and he was given possession of the premises comprising of two bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining, kitchen and two bath rooms on the first floor of the premises in the year 1997. It was further stated that he was getting Rs.10,000/- as salary from defendant no.2, out of which Rs.4000/- was being deducted towards the rent of the premises. The trial court, after obtaining the written statement from the defendants, decided the application for interim relief vide order dated 20.4.2010 and dismissed the same holding that the plaintiff could at best be considered to be a licencee. The trial court, however, admitted that the respondent-plaintiff is in possession of the premises and to that extent he has a prima facie case. Aggrieved of the order of the trial court dismissing the application for grant of injunction, respondent preferred Civil Misc. Appeal before the Additional District Judge, Panchkula. The appellate court vide the impugned order dated 4.6.2010 set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the appeal and protected the possession of the respondent by restraining the petitioners from interfering into the peaceful possession of the respondent over the premises in question, except in due course of law. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent is not the tenant of the petitioners and his status cannot be more than that of a trespasser, even if it is presumed that at some stage he was allowed to occupy the premises in his capacity as an employee of petitioner no.2-Company. It is further argued that the respondent is not the employee of the petitioner no.2-Company nor is a CR No.7050 of 2010 3 tenant. The plaintiff, respondent herein pleaded that he had occupied the premises in the year 1997 and a sum of Rs.4000/- was being deducted from his salary towards the rental of the premises. Petitioners, however, denied the claim of the respondent-plaintiff that he is an employee of the Company and that any amount was being deducted from the salary of the respondent. However, it is mentioned in paragraph 3 of this revision petition that plaintiff-respondent is no more in job of defendant no.1 since March, 2008 and working somewhere else. While admitting the possession of the plaintiff, respondent herein, it was stated that he was provided accommodation as a licencee and after termination of his licence, he has no legal right to retain the accommodation. Petitioners-defendants also admitted that the plaintiff was being paid Rs.1500/- per month which was later enhanced to Rs.2500/- per month. From the above facts, it appears that initial induction of the respondent in the premises of the petitioners- defendants is not disputed. Thus, the possession of the respondent cannot be said to be illegal or unauthorized. It is a different matter that the parties are at variance in regard to the nature of possession and the amount of salary etc. All these questions can only be considered after the trial of the suit. At this stage, the possession of the respondent which is admitted in the pleadings as also by courts below, cannot be said to be without any authority of law so as to deny protection by way of injunction. The appellate court has rightly set aside the order of the trial court and granted injunction protecting the possession of the respondent. I do not find any valid ground to interfere in the order of the appellate court. However, it is made clear that if on conclusion of the trial, it is found that the possession of the respondent (plaintiff) was unauthorized and illegal, the petitioners- CR No.7050 of 2010 4 defendants shall be entitled to claim compensation at the market rate for the period of unauthorized possession. With these observations, this revision petition is disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 18.8.2011 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 5