SAJJAN KUMAR THARAD Vs. DEORIS MARBANIANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the revision applications filed under Rule 36A of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the following short but substantial question of law has been raised:

(2.) Heard Shri N. Khan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Shri A. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the sole Respondent.

(3.) Both the writ applications are being disposed of by this common judgment and order since the question posed before this Court is based on identical facts. As could be gathered from the documents filed with the revision applications, the Petitioners were the Defendants under one David Nichols Roy in respect to shop houses situated at Barabazar Road. Shillong. Suddenly they received a pleader's notice on behalf of the Respondent asking them to vacate the tenanted premises on the ground that the building, wherein the shops of the Petitioners were situated, required immediate repairing and reconstruction. In the said notice the Respondent claimed himself to be the owner of the landed property, named and styled as "Nichols ROM Property". Hence title suits were filed by the Petitioners in the Court of learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Fast Khasi Hills, Shillong seeking a declaration that the Petitioners were bonafide tenants of the suit premises and also, inter alia, prayed for permanent in unction against the Respondent not to interfere with their possession. Alongwith the: plaint, applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were also filed seeking ad interim injunction so as to restrain the opposite party not to disturb the peaceful possession of the Petitioners.