SURESH KUMAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to dispose of the present revision petition, this court is not required to go into the disputed questions of fact. The bone of contention between the parties is the tenancy rights of shop No-51-AF, <PG>6</PG> Kolhapur Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. Suresh Kumar Kohli claims himself to be to the tenant of the disputed premises since 8-12-78. Inder Sain Kohli, the father of the petitioner asserts his rights of tenancy in the said shop. He is supported by his sons Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar.

(2.) As a dispute could not be resolved amicably, Inder Sain Kohli filed a Suit in the court of the Senior Sub-Judge for permanent injunction against the petitioner and another on or about 30-4-1983. Alongwith the said Suit, the plaintiff also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code, praying for the grant of exparte ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioner and another from interfering in the peaceful possession of the shop. The ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted by the lower Court. it was, however, later on vacated by Smt. Kamlesh Sabharwal, S.J.I.C. Delhi, on 14th May, 1986. Sliri Inder Sain, however, immediately moved the Sr. Sub-Judge and was able to secure the order of maintaining status que-qua the shop in dispute till the disposal of the appeal. This appeal is still pending and is being hetly centested by the petitioner.

(3.) Feeling helpless, Shri Suresh Kumar thought of and devised another method to take possession of the shop or in the alternative to deprive his father of his right to use the same. On 19-6-86, he moved an application undersection 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned S.D.M. Shri Vijay Kumar and Shri Ashok Kumar were arrayed as the respondents. He did not include his father inder Sain as a party presumably because of the pendency of civil litigation between the two. The learned S.D.M. called for the report from the S.H.O., Police Station Roshanara Road, and without affording the respondents an opportunity of being heard, directed the S.H.O. to sea! the premises under Section 146 Criminal Procedure Code . This order was challenged and Shri S.N. Kapcor, Add]. Sessions Judge, Delhi, quashed the proceedings under Sections 145/146 Criminal Procedure Code . The S.H.O. concerned was directed to deliver the keys of the shop to the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi. The parties were directed to abide by the judgment of the Civil Court, it is against this order Shri Suresh Kumar has come up in revision challenging the correctness of the impugned order of Shri S.N. Kapoor dated 29-10-1986.