HEM CHAND Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the appellate order dated 15 November 1990 of the Id. Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, made in M.C.A. No. 31 of 1990, allowing the appeal against the order dated 6 April 1987 of a Id. Sub Judge and setting aside the latter's order, made in Suit No. 473 of 1986 on application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code), directing to maintain status quo till the decision of the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff, Hem Chand, claiming to be in possession of half portion of ground floor of premises bearing No. 1053, Lal Kuan, Delhi for 23 years doing business in the name and style of M/s Lal Kuan Coal Co., without let or hindrance by the two defendants. Anil and Sunil Kumar or anyone else or paying any rent, filed the suit for permant injunction restraining the defendants from dispossesng the plaintiff or interfering in his peaceful possession of the portion shown red in the plan annexed with the plaint. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code was also filed along with it for interim orders.

(3.) The suit was resisted on diverse pleas, inter alia, denying plaintiffs possession, stating that the defendants' father Tara Chand had taken the entire ground floor on rent from M/s Tulsibhai Goverdhanbhai Patel Biri Merchants, for carrying on his business in the name of M/s Kumar Traders; Tara Chand, however, entered into an arrangement with one Nem Chand to share a part of the premises on the ground floor. The said Nem Chand used to carry on coal business in that portion; paid a sum of Rs. 200.00 per month to the said Tara Chand for its user regularly till 1981; the property was purchased by defendant No. 1 Anil Kumar on 15 November 1979; the plaintiff and Nem Chand are close relations and for some time in the past the plaintiff used to attend business along with the said Nem Chand. Some other pleas regarding non-maintainability of suit being barred under the Specific Relief Act, the plaint being liable to rejection for not disclosing cause of action and the plaintiff having no cause of action and not entitled to the relief claimed in the suit were also raised, on which issues have since been framed.